You are on page 1of 64

LAW 104



Some tips for the exam from Prof. Casis himself:
1. Pay attention to how the question is phrased. Make sure you answer the
right question, not the one that you imagine, or the one that you hope is
being asked.
2. Answer directly. Most of the questions are answered by yes/no.
3. Start with the law. You need not state the article number or the case title,
but you have to know the rule.
4. Apply the rules to the facts.
5. Lead with your strongest argument.
6. Good penmanship creates a presumption of brilliance.


Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune
Held Casis Critiques
PART ONE VC was then
Commissioner of Internal
SC granted damages
based on Art. 32 (6).
Court’s characterization of
Art. 32 as a tort was

TORT AND QUASI-DELICT Revenue. Was faulted for
issuing an invalid
It is not necessary that
VC should have acted
important. Thus, Court
seems to be saying that
Memorandum Circular with malice or bad faith; intent is not an element of
reclassifying Champion, it suffices that there is a tort.
Hope, More (Fortune violation of the
brands) as locally constitutional right of Arguably, Vinzons-Chato
manufactured cigarettes Fortune. A tort is a wrong, definition not binding also
I. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK . bearing a foreign brand a tortious act which has for being part of obiter-
with 55% ad valorem tax, been defined as the dictum. Several cases
deliberately after the commission or omission decided prior ruled that
legislature passed a law of an act by one, without bad faith not requirement
classifying them as local right, whereby another for action based on Art 32.
a. Etymology – Latin tortus, meaning “twisted” or “crooked”
brands with only 20-45% receives some injury,
b. Existence of “Philippine Tort Law” ad valorem tax. directly or indirectly, in Hypothetical:
§ Code Commission chose the term “quasi-delict” and rejected “tort” person, property or Can Kim Henares,
because they wanted exclude intentional and malicious acts from the Fortune sued for being reputation. authorizing TV ads
coverage of the concept because these are to be governed by the RPC demanded P9M, citing showing documents of
§ However, the Civil Code doesn’t reject the concept of tort because constitutional right Failure to specifically delinquent tax payers, be
some provisions seem to correspond with common law torts against deprivation of allege bad faith and liable for tort?
• Human Relations Torts – Arts. 19, 20, 21, 26 property. malice will not amount to • May answer in
• Strict Liability Torts – Arts. 1711, 1723, 2183, 2187, 2189-2193 VC defense: No cause of “failure to state cause of terms of Vinzons-
• Independent Civil Actions – Arts. 32 to 35 action because no action.” Chato definition
citation of malice or bad
c. Definition of Tort Under Philippine Law faith.
Naguiat v. NLRC (1997) Held Casis Critiques d. Elements of Tort
Clark Field Taxi FTI held a Court recognized no This definition not Garcia v. Salvador (2007) Held
concessionaire’s contract jusriprudential definition binding because mere Ranida Salvador was required a medical Garcia liable for gross negligence. All the
with Army Air Force for corporate tort. Instead, obiter dictum in the case. exam for regular employment. She was elements of actionable conduct under
Exchange Services. AAFES they provided definition Sergio Naguiat already found “reactive” to a liver disease test by Art. 20 were present:
dissolved due to phase- for tort: found liable as employer Community Diagnostic Center. Her • Duty – Violation of statutory
out of US military bases; under Ransom Labor father had a heart attack upon finding duty is negligence. RA 4688
drivers and officers “Essentially, tort consists Union v. NLRC, prior to out. She took 2 more tests and found “The Clinical Laboratory Law”
terminated. The Union in the violation of a right discussion of corporate she was actually “non-reactive.” mandates lab must have
refused the P500/yr given or the omission of a torts. Complaint for damages against Garcia supervision of pathologist.
severance pay filed a duty imposed by law. (the examiner in CDC) and Castro (the Castro not counted.
complaint against Pres. Simply stated, a tort is a Hypothetical: pathologist who only goes to CDC when • Breach - Garcia failed to comply
Sergio and VP Antionio for breach of a legal duty.” Can company president there’s a problem) for conducting a test w/o
separation pay. Issue was guilty of illegal
supervision of pathologist
whether they can be held Art. 283 of Labor Code termination under the
• Injury – the anxiety, loss of job,
solidarily held liable with mandates separation pay. Labor Code be liable for
mental trauma
the company. Failure to do so makes Tort?
the stockholder If yes – use Naguiat • Proximate Causation
personally liable. Sergio If no – also use
solidarily liable. Naguiat and say it
was obiter


Lucas v. Tuaño (2009) Held B. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT
What started out as sore eyes turned Dr. Tuaño not liable. Since no specific
into steroid-induced glaucoma. The law on medical negligence, can anchor
issue was whether the Dr. Tuaño could claim for damages on Art 2176, with 4 1. Historical Background
be held liable, after prescribing Maxitrol essential elements:
for prolonged periods of time. 1) Duty • Also referred to as "culpa-aquiliana", “culpa-extracontractual” or “cuasi-
2) Breach delitos”
3) Injury • In Barredo v. Garcia: A “culpa-aquiliana” is a separate legal institution under
4) Proximate Causation the Civil Code, with a substantivity of its own, and individuality that is
All 4 elements must co-exist. Negligence entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime”
must be the proximate cause of the o This case shows that concept of “quasi-delict” existed even under
injury. Breach must constitute the old Civil Code
actionable malpractice and proof of
breach must be established by expert 2. Nature
Art 1157. Obligations arise from:
Ocean Builders v. Sps. (1) Law;
Held Casis Critiques
Cubacub (2011) (2) Contracts;
Bladimir was foreman at Hao not liable, no Court characterized the (3) Quasi-contracts;
construction company; negligence. To action as based on tort (4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts
had chickenpox; was told successfully prosecute an but in the end stated Hao
to rest by employer for 3 action anchored on torts, and company not guilty of
days. When he resumed 3 elements must be negligence. It’s 3. Governing Provisions
work, he asked to be present: “interesting” (aka
brought home. Employer (1) Duty “stupid”?) because Art. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of
Hao gave P1k to another (2) Breach negligence doesn’t appear Chapter 2, Title XVII of the Civil Code, and by special laws. (aka Arts. 2176-2194)
employee to accompany (3) Injury and Proximate to be relevant in the
him to nearest hospital, Causation. context of elements 4. Definition
Bladimir died 2 days later identified by the Court.
of pneumonia. His parents Art 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
filed complaint for negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
damages for Hao’s pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter
negligence leading to his
5. Scope
3. The Purpose of Tort Law
• Compensation of individuals for losses which they have suffered within the a. “Intentional” Acts Included?
scope of their legally recognized interests • GENERALLY, NO. Art. 2176 clear that cause of action based on QD requires
o In a nutshell: Compensation for harm that act/omission be committed with negligence. This means there must
have been NO INTENT on the part of the defendant to harm the plaintiff.
• The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a
voluntary act or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere
negligence or inattention, has caused damage to another. (Cangco v.
Manila Railroad)
o Note: Voluntary =/= willful


It is more in accord with • They can overlap. and killed by Agapito Elcano. IAC): barred by the acquittal of Reginald? offended party doesn’t recover twice. and Sps. son of Marvin Hill. In the criminal acts which are criminal in character OR trial. CA (1993) Held Casis Critiques 2. it is possible that the same act or omission may be and talked into living with but Court mentioned the sound doctrine to rule that considered either as a tort or as a quasi-delict Baksh. (destruction by means of inundation) and a civil action (damages) were filed. Damage to Property 1. while cuasi-delitos are only of private “Damage” is used in 2 concepts: the concern. Elements YES IT CAN: Art. because the latter includes all not limited to personal but also to acts in which “any kind of fault or negligence intervenes. b. “harm” done and the “reparation” for the 2. Andamo own parcel of land Lower court ordered to proceed with civil • Connection of cause and effect between the fault/negligence of the adjacent to that of Missionaries of Our action. persons but also damage to property. The Missionaries’ land criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the constructed an artificial lake. Elcano was aquitted due to “lack of in violation of the penal law. 21. C. • Damage (should be: injury – Casis) to the plaintiff • Negligence. her virginity to. 1. Art 2176 is may be voluntary. created flooding. “Harm” includes both injuries merely repairs the damage to person and property since “harm” is 3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TORT AND QUASI-DELICT 1. 21. of the defendant. an Iranian. while the Civil Code harm done. Delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts. whether • No pre-existing contractual relation intent to kill. by act or omission. Crimes affect the public interest. Andamo v. 21 was between and without willful intent started maltreating her. was courted Baksh liable under Art.The success of the quasi-delictual Cinco v. coupled with mistake” voluntary or negligent. to scope of Art. Brunty. The RPC punishes or corrects the criminal act.” property injuries. Hill (1977) Held • Damage to another Reginald Hill. declaring the fact from which the civil inundated their land. An action against Is the present civil action for damages offender in criminal act can lie as long as Jurisprudence (PNR v. Then he (that Art. Concept of culpa aquiliana includes • Fault or negligence. unless there is an acquittal Andamo’s crops. was No. or by some other person Andamo v.   4 . while quasi-delict is a single cause of action Baksh v. IAC (1990) Held for whose act the defendant must respond. Acquittal or conviction in the defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff Lady of La Salle. Distinct Concepts NO IT CAN’T: • Torts is a classification of several causes of action. he repudiated his or omissions and promise to marry. Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery The concept of QD under 2176 is broad of damages re: vehicular accident enough to include not only injuries to Differences between crimes and cuasi-delitos (Barredo v. excludes the notion of D. Distinguishing quasi-delict from delict . QUASI-DELICT & DELICT willfulness or intent. 2176 in a quasi-delict is • One way of looking at it: a quasi-delict is a tort committed via whom she surrendered explaining nature of Torts committed by negligence negligence or a quasi-delict is a “negligence tort”. damaged civil case. confrontation with Brgy. Framework Mariolou.Divergent Rulings on whether QD includes “intentional acts”: 6. Garcia) involving his automobile and a jeepney. spectrum between RPC to injure although the act and during a and 2176). A criminal action action arose did not exist. limited to negligent acts Officer. Canonoy (1979) Held action does not depend on the success of the criminal action. 2176: • Act or omission Elcano v.

was not a common carrier. from these relations. Cangco sued MR respond for the damage arose from seat at the rear end of the vehicle. and can be rebutted by proof Sunga filed a complaint for damages is no relation between him and another of its exercise of due care in their against Calalas under contract of party. defended himself criminal action. negligence. Manila Railroad) c. as subrogee of CII. which. not breach of contract Cangco was an employee at the Manila The negligence of the employees Railroad and gets a free pass to ride the constituted an effective legal cause of Calalas v. Sarmiento (2002) Held subsidiary liability. and contract of carriage. corresponding right of relief. Burden of Proof Source of Obligation Upon which Burden of Proof Barredo v. Applicability of doctrine of proximate cause Cangco v. Art 1903 (now Contractual undertaking between Proof of the contract and its subsidiarily liable. hold the ER subsidiarily liable only upon the shipment. Contracts already have selection and supervision. can be the basis for a from liability by saying he was only civil action for damages. One day. (Cangco v. If action transport cargoes to CII but it collided it was still liable. under the RPC. Barredo. unlike culpa contractual. the a truck owned by Salva bumped the rear contract. rather than the cumbersome to warrant a recovery. 2. would require and defenses available the claimant for damages to prove a. he stepped on a sack of Foundation of MR’s liability was the operated by Calalas. the case was dismissed. a prior conviction of its EE. covered cargo and. burden of proof. Source: Culpa aquiliana has its source in the breach or omission of those negligence or fault on the part of the mutual duties which civil society imposes upon its members. delict. paid the value of the of its compliance justify. CA (2000) Held train. Manila Railroad denied liability because insisted a quasi-delict. Garcia (1942) Held Plaintiff’s Action Depends Collision between taxi and carretela. and obligation to capacity so she was given an extension driver. The doctrine of proximate cause his arm was crushed. the action chosen is for • Cangco v. Not necessary to separate civil action against the method of exhausting the driver’s specify in pleadings whether the breach employer of the taxi driver. prima facie. HOWEVER. YES. of certain members of society to others. Art. FGU’s civil action against the driver can 1. Eliza Sunga rode a passenger jeep Calalas liable. upon stepping off the the injuries sustained by Cangco. fell on the platform. An info for Reckless Imprudence give rise to 2 separate civil liabilities: Burden is placed on the defendant to Resulting to Homicide was filed against 1) Civil Liability ex delicto prove that it was due to an unforeseen the driver. but he committed suicide so 2) Independent civil liabilities event or to force majeure. Thus.   5 . it was filled to proximate was negligence of the truck watermelons. liability of Manila Road was direct and portion of the jeepney and injured Sunga. Differences in source. Employers If. 2177 supports the view that the Negligent act/omission Burden rests upon plaintiff to prove the Carretela passenger died. there is a presumption that the LG Foods and driven by their employee. contract. which was the basis of a negligence employer of taxi driver. not in actions involving breach of employees in leaving the watermelons its performance. Overlap between quasi-delict and delict b. sued GPS and its driver for driver is not liable because it wasn’t a E. GPS’ defense was that it party to the contract of carriage. Distinguishing culpa aquiliana from culpa contractual only be based on culpa aquiliana. established obligation. or which arise defendant. good father of the family. the P can with another truck. When is applicable only in actions for quasi- based on the negligence of its breach of failing to exercise due care in she gave way to an outgoing passenger. as same act. subject to FGU Insurance v. LG Foods v. the P may hold the ER liable conviction for driver before their for the negligent EE’s act. Manila Railroad (1918) Held only applicable for quasi-delicts. An act/omission causing damage can defendant was at fault or negligent. as here. It is immaterial that the platform. FGU. applicability of doctrine of proximate cause. imputing liability to a person where there immediate. The mere proof of the Can a case be dismissed because of chosen is for culpa criminal. CULPA AQUILIANA AND CULPA CONTRACTUAL reimbursement. defense of exercise of diligence of a GPS trucking company undertook to Even though GPS not a common carrier. Philadelfa (2006) Held Once the plaintiff proves breach of A 7-yr old boy was hit by a van owned by Art 2177 provides alternative remedies. Just remember Art 2177 of the contract is due to willful fault or to primarily and directly responsible? forestalls a double recovery. making him property first. Because of this. the insurer of existence of the contract and the failure failure to reserve civil action? No. carriage. other than contractual. The Doctrine is a device for on the platform. Issue: 2176) provides a more expeditious plaintiff and defendant nonperformance is sufficient prima facie Can the parents of deceased bring remedy.

had no contract existed between the was dishonored and he of contract and that bad requiring independence. while moral damages are whether QD can be act/omission complained causing physical injuries” and automatic if QD with injury.” Was a breach of be bad faith in the breach of contract to breach is: where. contractual relationship. It on quasi-delict or culpa went into someone else’s aquiliana is generally hands and the LC Diaz applicable when there is lost P300k. the 2 sentence of negligence. Case of the messenger of Lower courts differed bec. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the card to Clarita Luna. It cites “(2) Quasi-delicts Thus. his card with malice in the breach delict) but merely a rule constitute CULPA EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL. moral Art. Although the best. pre-existing contract.Proof of exercise extraordinary by the stewardess that a feelings etc. Were includes gross but not can exist between parties Fores v. Applying to this case: pleaded guilty. breach.” But if a Bar question mentions familiar names. issued a supplemental culpa contractual. injury. proximate causation) that would InterCon hotel. 1756) right to it. contractual relationship. is obliged to pay for the damage done. Art 2219 provides a list of delict and breach of contract. Manila Railroad) had to pay in cash and faith. only awarded P5k To reconcile: Under this nd Art 2176. if there is no pre. the existences of a informed FEBTC. Cangco was decided under the Old Code. Issue was carrier is contractual. compelling him to move of moral damages. in this context. without a separate cause of action contract analogous to a quasi-delict? recover moral damages. Carrascoso Source of Obligation Defense Available Held Casis Critiques (1966) Culpa Aquiliana Defense of due diligence in the Carrascoso bought a 1 st There was bad faith in The issue was the award .ER can be made liable on the basis selection and supervision of his class ticket on Air France. there being fault or card to Luis Luna and nominal damages. also be a tort. Culpa contractual is excluded by awarded? claim was predicated on exists without a contract. (Cangco v. New Code is explicit. of his own negligence employees bound for Rome. Defense of Employer for Negligence of Employee Air France v. you Far East Bank v. Miranda (1959) Held moral damages to be simple negligence. damages.Fact of breach of contract may . their contract. thus moral damages not Luna’s damage claim was whether moral damages ought to be defenses and proof” between quasi. Without the instances where moral damages can be FEBTC. d. Is there an intersection? Casis: If you want to give a simple answer. diligence in the case of common white man had a better relation of passenger and cited for the rule that an carriers (Art. 2176. (1995)   FEBTC issued a credit No. No basis for this general LC Diaz Accounting Firm considered rules on rule without an exception. In test. 2176 is interpreted existing contractual relation between the parties. injuries thru reckless imprudence. causing wounded dictum and not binding. This means a quasi-delict • However. there has to deemed to underlie of can’t by itself stand as “analogous cases.Force Majeure the BKK stopover was told seated. The IF the cause of action Driver was charged serious physical No. act that breaches a whether Carrascoso was nevertheless the act that contract can also be a Note: In either case. parties. damages may be not as a rule of preclusion provisions of this Chapter Clarita lost her card and recovered where the (i. At .   6 . the because no obligation on act/omission nonetheless the part of FEBTC to give Consolidated Bank v. ER cannot raise defense that breach was caused by EE’s negligence entitled to moral breaks the contract may violation of Art. The law Consolidated Bank. The test on agreement. 2.e. The issue now was Court cited differences in “conditions. When defendant is shown to contract precludes the • An intersection is possible if the ACT (which breaches the contract) is under Luis hosted a lunch at the have acted in bad faith or existence of a quasi- such conditions (ex: duty. which says “no pre-existing contractual relation. but upon after he was already the statement is obiter Culpa Contractual . Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. the awarded. awarded because no predicated solely on awarded. was embarrassed. proven bad faith from contract. who left the passbook quasi-delict. SC held bank no pre-existing liable (culpa contractual). this case can be give rise to liability. but this is with the teller of culpa contractual. you can cite Art. 21. he definition of quasi-delicts under 2176. CA Held Casis Critiques can cite the ruling of that case. Such fault or negligence. CA amounts to an actionable credit to Luna outside Held Casis Critiques (2003) tort by itself. Thus.

no of flagbars/ safety operation of trains and in passengers. 1173. "Look" sign was bent. No breach Juan Syquia. and so water Sale didn’t guarantee it to be waterproof. and the circumstances of the collected. Prudent PNR v. Default Standard of Diligence: that of a good father of a family (Art. the coffin was damaged and There was no culpa aquiliana because persons. and schools have govern. Natividad (2003) Held railroad bars the maintenance of Natividad was drunk upon entering the The foundation of LRTA’s liability was . collided with PNR train. both in the contract of carriage with .Ambiguous use of the absence of the diligence required who was stabbed by an circumstances of the case word “really” nd outsider on the 2 floor of evince a contractual . shall apply. CA (1992) Held Casis Critiques II.” collided with a PNR train. where he was struck by the reason of its failure to exercise the high train and killed. SC said • Greater danger = greater degree of care required (Far Eastern v. and place (Art. NEGLIGENCE . accrues from the time the said crossing is so designated and sign- posted. PSBA held liable. Jorge) damaged. but it forgets Articles 1171 and 2201.Court says that an Art. time. A.inadequacy of installed crossings. LRT and Prudent. the rules on possible even without the persons. of the time and of the place.Failure to keep the signal It may be said that a only LRT was liable. a determination of negligence requires determining: in Art. Determining the Diligence Required was a hole in the vault. reasonable degree of care extraordinary diligence This case is No. 21 of the Civil Code. choosing to drill the holes. negligence was not duly proven. including a LRT premises. contract. 1173(2))   7 . Case of the flooded vault of the late Memorial park was absolved. negligence. and they had an obligation to indemnify the victim arose . relation between PSBA action under Art. Still. were both charged but not liable because the guard’s Driver stopped for a while . Case of Carlitos Bautista Because the . paragraph 2. when they cross railroad thereby allowing the rules on tort to "Listen" sign was missing. 21 is still is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the There is a contract and Bautista. • Diligence required under the circumstances • Whether the actor has performed it Syquia v. a built-in obligation to the school cannot exist act complained of to be that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. importance of the act (Sicam v. A before crossing the devices in working order higher diligence (full stop) contractual obligation may be breached railroad track but still would be an indication of is required of motorists by tort when the same act causes injury.lack of proper lighting in proximity of the railway altercation that caused him to fall into from the breach of that contract by the area the platform. 1173) the remains of the deceased were internment foreman was diligent in • Varies with nature of the situation. CA) “although a pre-existing contract does not preclude the existence of culpa PNR v. He was told off by the the contract of carriage and its warning signals large sign to indicate the Security Guard. When negligence shows bad faith. the Court provides for other definitions. unless the negligent. 1 on Sir’s Most Hated Cases haha PNR's safety measures to avoid injury to persons standard applicable to its were inadequate: and property. • Factors are the nature of the obligation. we find no reason to disregard Car running at 70kph Due diligence required of This due diligence is respondent Court’s finding that there overtook another car. . His family found that there of contract because Absolute Deed of 1.Obligation to come to a tracks properly sign apply. then railroad companies: different from the was no negligence. the provisions of between the student and quasi-delict do not really contract. CA (2007) Held Casis Critiques security agency. full stop before traversing posted. Brunty (2006) Held Casis Critiques aquiliana. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which PSBA. Light Rail Transit v. driver made a PNR invokes right of way. PSBA v. provide atmosphere independently of the “wilfull” and not merely conducive for learning. 1173 (1). CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE negligence occurs under the circumstances set out Based on Art. 2. a "through street" only full stop in this case. the diligence of the common carrier. The negligence of that Art. CA (1993) Held Nevertheless. school. 21 requires the If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance.


• Slight - failure to use great care (which a person of extraordinary prudence 1. Importance of a Standard of Conduct
and foresight would use) • The standard of conduct corresponds to the level of diligence required.
• Ordinary - failure to use ordinary care Without a standard, it cannot be determined W/N a person is negligent.
• Gross - failure to use even slight care (which a careless person would use)
These reflect how close/far the conduct complied with the standard of diligence. 2. The Fictitious Person
In reality it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure a person's negligence.
a. Common Law's Reasonable Person (reasonable man of ordinary prudence)
One rule in jurisprudence to establish gross negligence in committing an act:
• Personification of community ideal of reasonable behavior
determine whether the act was dangerous per se.
b. Civil Law's Good Father of a Family (bonus paterfamilias)
Amedo v. Rio (1954) Held
• Default standard if the law or contract does not provide otherwise
Seaman drowned while retrieving his 2- Jumping into the sea, 1.5 miles away
• Personal circumstances of the actor must be taken into account (Art. 1173)
peso bill. To claim under the Workmen's from the shore, is a failure to exercise
Compensation Act, the accident must (1) "even slight care and diligence". The • The standard does not require that the actor act according to facts known
arise out of and (2) in the course of the danger it entails being clear, potent and to the judge at the time of adjudication but by the circumstances before
employment, (3) not be caused by obvious, it is distinguishable from other them or known to them (Picart v. Smith)
employee's notorious (gross) acts not being dangerous per se and the Picart v. Smith (1918) Held Casis Critiques
negligence. employee being legally justified to "Perturbed by the novelty As he approached the - Under Art. 1173 of the
perform in the course of his employment. of the apparition or the center, he should have current Civil Code, the
Marinduque Iron Mines v. Workmen's rapidity of the approach" perceived that it was too personal circumstances of
Held of the car running at 10- late for the horse to cross the actor must be taken
Compensation Commission (1956)
12mph, Picart thought he with safety. The control of into account.
Laborers boarded a truck which turned Mere riding on a haulage truck or stealing
did not have enough time the situation had then - In this case, the Court
over and hit a coconut tree after a ride thereon is not negligence,
to direct his pony to the passed entirely to Smith. appears to require that the
overtaking another truck on the ordinarily. Transportation by truck is not
correct side of the bridge. - The existence of actor be able to foresee
company road. dangerous per se. Violation of a rule
Seeing the horse was negligence in a given case the danger caused by his
promulgated by a Commission/ board is
quiet, Smith did not slow is not determined by action in order to be
Note: Sir said this decision should be not negligence per se; but it may be
down and change lanes reference to the personal negligent. It seems the
taken with a grain of salt. evidence of negligence. Even granting
while he was still far away. judgment of the actor but Court applied this test
there was negligence, it could not be
The pony was struck and by what would be rather than the standard
gross negligence.
Picart was thrown off. reckless, blameworthy, or of the "ordinary prudent
Ilao-Oreta v. Ronquillo Court held Smith's negligent in the man of person".
Held Casis Critiques
(2007) decision to stay on his ordinary intelligence. - The Court equated
Doctor did not arrive at the She was negligent, but not Thus, the Court took into course at the same speed - Reasonable foresight of common law's "ordinary
scheduled time for a grossly. Negligence could account two factors in was negligent, even harm, followed by ignoring prudent person" with civil
laparoscopic procedure. have been caused by determining the degree of though he was on the the suggestion, is needed law's "bonus
She not consider time human frailty (honeymoon negligence: proper side of the road. before negligence can be paterfamilias".
difference between the preparations). Also, the - nature of the operation held to exist.
Philippines and Hawaii. procedure was elective, - personal circumstances
not life-threatening. of the doctor Sicam v. Jorge (2007) Held
Pawnshop was allegedly robbed. The - Quoting Cruz v. Gangan: Negligence is
If the first factor vault was open at the time of the robbery the omission to do something which a
corresponds to the nature and there was no clear showing that reasonable man would do; or the doing of
of the obligation, then there was even a security guard. something which a prudent and
these correspond to reasonable man would not to.
factors determining the - Sicam failed to exercise reasonable care
diligence required. and caution required by circumstances/
operation of his pawnshop business.

Corinthian Gardens v. 4. Children
Held Casis Critiques
Tanjangco (2008)
Cuasos' perimeter fence - A negligent act is one Based on this case, it may Under Art. 2180, parents or guardians may be held responsible for the negligent acts
encroached on the from which an ordinary be said that if one is given of their children. Thus, the law recognizes that even children can be negligent.
Tanjangcos' lot by 87 prudent person in the authority to approve/ The issue re: diligence required of children has given rise to many views/ methods:
sqm. Cuasos ascribe actor's position, in the disapprove plans or 1. "Age brackets" standard: children have absolute immunity at a certain age.
negligence to the builder, same or similar designs, then the requisite • The problem is determining the age when it applies.
the engineer who circumstances, would diligence is one which • Sangco's age brackets: applies rules on criminal liability by analogy;
conducted the relocation foresee such an makes sure the said plans hence, a child under 9 years of age must be conclusively presumed
survey, and to the village appreciable risk of harm are compliant. incapable of contributory negligence.
association for approving to others. 2. Take into account the specific characteristic of the child
their relocation survey and - Failure to prevent the • Subjective standard; uses the maturity and capacity of the child
building plans without encroachment, despite the 3. Measure the acts of the child against "average conduct of persons his age
verifying their accuracy. inspection conducted, and experience" (same age, capacity, discretion, knowledge, and experience
constitutes negligence, under the same or similar circumstances)
and at the very least, • Both objective (child will be compared to others of similar age and
contributed to the injury. experience) and subjective (age and experience of the child himself)
• This is similar to the fictitious person standard. The child's actions are
3. Special Circumstances measured against "average conduct" and the fictitious person is also
Añonuevo v. CA (2004) Held Casis Critiques the average conduct expected by the community.
Bicycle collided with a car A driver of an automobile Court recognized a greater Taylor v. Manila Railroad
that was making a left is required to use a greater degree of diligence on the Held Casis Critiques
turn. degree of care because part of drivers of motor 15y/o boy and 12y/o boy The care and caution This case makes use of
the machine is capable of vehicles in case of picked up fulminating required of a child is the subjective standard
greater destruction. collision with bicycles. camps from Manila according to his maturity (see #2, above).
Electric. After a series of and capacity, determined
Heirs of Completo v.
Held Casis Critiques experiments, they opened by the circumstances of
Albayda (2010)
a cap with a knife and put the case. Here, the 15 y/o
Speeding car bumped and More will be required of a -The special circumstance a match to it. The ensuing boy had worked as a cabin
sideswiped a bicycle. motorist than a bicyclist in here is the inherent explosion injured them boy and was able to work
discharging his duty of differences in the vehicles. and a 9 y/o girl. as a draftsman after the
care because of the - The role here of special injury.
physical advantages the circumstance is unclear;
automobile has over the the case was decided on Jarco Marketing v. CA
bicycle. preponderance of Held Casis Critiques
evidence, not by a higher 6y/o girl was pinned by The rule is: A child under 9 The Court in this case
degree of diligence. the store's gift-wrapping y/o must be conclusively adopted the "age
counter while her mother presumed incapable of brackets" proposed by
Pacis v. Morales (2010) Held Casis Critiques was at the payment and contributory negligence as Sangco (see #1, above).
Gun shop sales agent was A higher degree of care is Interestingly, the Court verification counter. a matter of law.
shot in the head while required of someone who initially characterized the
handling a defective gun has in his possession/ cause of action as one Ylarde v. Aquino (1988) Held Casis Critiques
that (still loaded) was left under his control an based on Art. 2180 in rel. Pupils aged 10-11 played He did only what any other This test is both
on the table. instrumentality extremely to Art 2176 (vicarious in an excavation pit while 10 y/o child would do in subjective and objective
dangerous in character. liability), but it seems the their teacher was away. the same situation. His (see #3, above)
Such person has the duty gun shop owner was held One boy jumped on a conduct should be judged
to take exceptional accountable for his own concrete block, which slid according to the average
precautions to prevent any negligence, not that of his into the pit and pinned his conduct of persons of his
injury being done thereby. employee. classmate, killing him. age and experience.

a. In General General rule: the person who alleges negligence has the burden of proving it (Sec. 1,
• If one offers his services he is understood as holding himself out to the Rule 131), but law and jurisprudence provide for certain presumptions.
public as possessing the degree of skill commonly possessed by others in
the same employment; if his pretensions are unfounded, he commits a A. IN MOTOR VEHICLE MISHAPS
series of fraud on every man who employs him (Far Eastern Shipping v. CA)
1. Previous Violation
Culion v. Philippine Motors (1930) Held
Schooner engine to be changed from When a person holds himself out as Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former,
gasoline to crude oil. New carburetor being competent to do things requiring who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It
started flooding, with the fuel trickling, professional skill, he will be held liable is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless
but this was ignored by PM's manager. for negligence if he fails to exhibit the driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.
The schooner was engulfed in flames care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable.
during the trial run. the particular work.
2. Simultaneous Violations
b. Pharmacists
• Jurisprudence places a high standard of diligence for pharmacists. Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor
o Highest degree of care and diligence (Mercury Drug v. De Leon) vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
• Caveat emptor cannot apply to purchase and sale of drugs (US v. Pineda)
Tison v. Sps. Pomasin
US v. Pineda (1918) Held Casis Critiques Held Casis Critiques
Santos purchased Delivery of a poisonous It is unreasonable to apply Tractor-trailer driver's A causal connection must This doesn't mean that the
potassium chlorate. He drug by mistake is prima this rule if the packaging license restriction was exist between the injury presumption arises only
was given barium facie negligence. Caveat of the medicine dispensed violated at the time the received and the violation when the traffic violation
chlorate, which poisoned emptor cannot apply; it makes it clear that it is not vehicle collided with a of the traffic regulation. It was the proximate cause.
some of his sick horses. should be caveat venditor. the one requested. jitney from opposite must be proven that the It means that despite the
Mercury Drug v. De Leon (2008) Held direction. Court found traffic regulation was the presumption of negligence
Judge De Leon showed his prescription Diligence required of a pharmacist (US negligence on jitney proximate/ legal cause of in 2185, the claimant must
for "Cortisporin Opthalmic" (eye drops) jurisp.): highest degree of care known to driver's part (zigzagging the injury or that it still prove that such
but was given "Cortisporin Otic Solution". practical men. His mistake is negligence. downhill, overloaded). substantially contributed. negligence was the
The pharmacist did not apologize. She Such mistake cannot be tolerated. proximate cause.
said she was unable to fully read the Mercury Drug was grossly negligence in Sanitary Steam v. CA
prescription and she gave the only dispensing ear drops. Worse, they tried to Held Casis Critiques
Cortisporin Solution available in the PH. blame the victim. To avoid hitting jeepney Petitioner must show that This supports the view
that made sudden stop in the violation of the statute stated above.
c. Medical Professionals front, a truck swerved to was the proximate/legal
• Medical malpractice/negligence: failure of a physician/ surgeon to apply to other lane, hitting a cause of the injury or that
his practice that degree of care and skill ordinarily employed by the Cimarron (which had only it substantially
profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding 1 working headlight, contributed thereto.
circumstances (Cayao Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete) overloaded front seat).
Cruz v. CA (2008) Held Añonuevo v. CA (2004) Held
Hysterectomy in clinic that lacked the Doctors have a duty to use at least the Bicycle collided with a car that was Art. 2185 should not apply to non-
necessary blood bags and oxygen tanks. same level of care that any other making a left turn. The bicycle was not motorized vehicles, even by analogy.
The patient died but Dr. Ninevetch was reasonably competent doctor would use registered and had no safety gadgets Moreover, Añonuevo did not attempt to
acquitted because the standard of care to treat a condition under the same installed in violation of a 1948 municipal establish a causal connection between
(and failure to comply with it) was not circumstances. It is in this aspect that ordinance. Car driver invokes Art. 2185 the safety violations and the accident
established by expert testimony. expert testimony is essential. against the bicycle rider. itself. His speeding was the prox cause.

gives rise to an inference that someone must Art. Nature of the Accident • In light of ordinary experience. he must respond with 3. destroyed or deteriorated. such as firearms and poison. having such control used proper care. 1752. the Court • Where the thing which caused the injury. IAC (1988) Held Casis Critiques of the defendant (or his servants). earthquake. Agana (2007) Held goods. except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his b. negligence was shown by invoked in the complete in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. 1. Casis said we should memorize this. If no • Ordinarily does not occur unless someone is negligent evidence. The would remain inapplicable under the latter was exculpated. In from (or was caused by the defendants) want of care. • Fundamental element • Usually required to be "exclusive control". CA. unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: 2 pieces of gauze were left in the The element of control and management (1) Flood. Common carriers are responsible for the loss. Even if he stayed in the OR. RES IPSA LOQUITUR • RIL can only be invoked when under the circumstances. 2. 2188. but Professional Services v. Patient was lacking. if the goods are lost. destruction or deterioration. common carriers are presumed to have c. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the • Prime example: medical negligence cases (patient is usually incapable of vigilance over the goods. (Tan v. 4. it affords reasonable evidence. Ampil) and the the hospital when the incision was (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers. and 5 of the preceding article. if plaintiff (Professional Services v. direct evidence of 1. (2) Act of the public enemy in war. Agana) RIL as a defense. whether international or civil. COMMON CARRIERS Agana indicates that "control and management" is sufficient Art. hysterectomy only (Dr. but merely that there be evidence removing inference of his own responsibility (Prosser&Keaton) Art. Control over the Cause occupation or business. based on Ramos v. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. Statement of the Rule (N. affords reasonable evidence. surgeon who was asked to perform the closed. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the have been negligent (e. Effect of Direct Evidence D. defendant who invoked have to.B. No Contribution to the Injury from the Injured been at fault or to have acted negligently. Dr. Fuentes). is eliminated • No explanation by the defendant (added by Professional Services v. Definition: "the thing or the transaction speaks of itself" negligence or direct cause of the injury is absent and not readily available 2. the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in acting). it negligent based on RIL.g. Elements of RIL. C. • Not necessary that the plaintiff be completely inactive. a fire not caused by spontaneous natural event) death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances. Agana)   11 . Prof.) • Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management Layugan v. without the fault of the injured. lightning. 3. "Captain of the Ship" rule. or deterioration of the Professional Services v. A kerosene lamp Ramos v. management) of the person sought to be liable • Possibility of contributing conduct. and the accident is such as in the Layugan parked his cargo RIL should not apply The doctrine here does not ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the truck along the National because truck driver's mean RIL can only be management (or control) used proper care. POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR SUBSTANCES a. B. 1735. CA ( RIL N I C E ): evidence also. or other natural disaster or calamity. He doesn't to him to establish that he has observed due care and diligence. RIL (5) Order or act of competent public authority. cargo truck. provided it does not involve a question requiring expert testimony case of their loss. 1734. is must show he put an EWD (EWD) was placed 3-4 m said RIL can be used under the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such that it or else he is presumed from the rear of the parked along with other proof. in the absence of explanation that the injury Defendant should not arose from the defendant's want of care. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733. Jam Transit) Isidro argues Layugan evidence. which would make the plaintiff responsible. patient's body after an operation. and the burden of proof is shifted (Unusual: It was the invoke RIL. Fuentes was no longer in (3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods.) presents evidence. clear and convincing absence of evidence. Art. that the accident arose Isidro's truck bumped him. destruction. should not have occurred if he. storm. 4. sued the lead surgeon (Dr. Hwy to repair a tire. defendant • Caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control (or control and should move to dismiss.

He passed the site daily. RIL does 2. CA. • Procedural. applying RIL. and quail eggs on the evidence is considering that if the • Does not dispense with requirement of proof of culpable negligence turned turtle. based on common collision took place. oxygen tanks. Court applied RIL to allow non-expert testimony double yellow center lines. all the violation of a traffic • Merely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence argues the Jam bus tried requisites are present. not through the uneducated 5. Person in charge of the instrumentality ordinarily knows the cause of the CA reversed because Tan on overtaking on hwy not arise simply because injury. generally elevator was a result of the person which destroyed several finding of negligence Bureau of Fire Protection inadmissible). necessary evidence an allegation of is absent/ not available (bridge). negligence if the elements obtain. the Court applied Tower. Jitney driver presented. Needless certain types of evidence to be admissible TC.certain occurrences. Tan v. contrast. a presumption Jam bus driver at fault incident happened". expert testimony may be of the fire. Doctrine of common knowledge . will not occur without negligence line regulation and the ban RIL. He was speeding and lacked the necessary blood bags and a conclusion best arrived at by the had no helmet or headlights. One of the theoretical bases for the dispensed with to sustain doctrine is necessity. Under RIL. offered to prove that the circumstances • Mode of proof/ mere procedural convenience (inadequate facilities) are constitutive of conduct falling below the standard of • Peculiar to the law of negligence that recognizes that prima facie care employed by other physicians in negligence may be established without direct proof. a traffic regulation Jurisprudence provides at least 2 reasons: traffic regulation when the the driver was violating simultaneous with the 1. The effect Belfranlt (2007) Overheated coffee Even w/o the testimony of Thus. the rider had the exclusive Cruz v. RIL became an issue in relation to of RIL is to warrant a presumption/ percolator in CAP's the fireman and the RIL even if there were police officer's testimony as to the cause inference that the mere fall of the storeroom caused a fire documents he presented. a rule of evidence and not of substantive law with it) was not established by expert Expert testimony should have been • Does not create or constitute an independent/separate ground of liability testimony. DM Consunji v. Res Ipsa Loquitur versus Expert Testimony in Medical Negligence Cases • Expert testimony is essential to establish: BJDC Construction v. unquestionable knowledge of expert Ninevetch was acquitted because the witnesses. evidence as to the cause for specific proof of negligence. traffic regulation. documents from the of the fall (mere opinion. 8. In At the time of the accident. control of the construction company. Platform carrying a construction worker This contention loses relevance in the Held Casis Critiques fell from 14th floor of the Renaissance face of CA's application of RIL. CA (2001) Held College Assurance v. the re. the double yellow center mishap is different from knowledge. The fatal o Physician's conduct falls below such standard barrier at a road re-blocking site. having charge of the instrumentality portions of Belfranlt's could not be overturned by that were presented as being negligent. and furnishes a good standing when performing the substitute for specific proof of negligence same operation. By arising from a violation of 7. Effect of the Rule Jitney loaded with salted RIL applies because based It is not clear if the Court • Creates a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant eggs. The patient died but Dr. CA (1997) Held blocking had been going on for over a control of how he operated and managed Hysterectomy in 'untidy' clinic that W/N there was reckless imprudence was month. evidence of negligence but presumption of negligence o Hence it can be said that the secondary effect of RIL is to allow the evidence presented under Art. Jam Transit (2009) Held Casis Critiques 6. bare denial. balot. an actor is violating a evidence. while the plaintiff does not had access to direct intersections. including judges. Lanuzo (2014) Held o Standard of care of the profession Motorcycle rider sideswiped a concrete RIL has no application here. found the can establish "how the to say. His accident was not caused by an o Failure to observe the standard is the proximate cause of the injury heirs allege the site's inadequate lighting instrumentality within the exclusive • Usually necessary to support to conclusion as to causation was the proximate cause of the accident. 2185. Nature of the Rule standard of care (and failure to comply surmises of laymen. • Relieves plaintiff of burden of producing specific proof of negligence   12 . Justification for the Rule because it was violating a overtaking on the left lane. It furnishes a substitute building. Certainly. his motorcycle. regulation is negligence • Bridge by which plaintiff reaches over to defendant for an explanation to overtake despite the There was no direct per se or merely raises a • But in Ramos v.

recover damages. he caused his own electrocution. Sps. Bridwell guidelines the proof of negligence. When the he cannot plaintiff's recover own negligence damages. In quasi-delicts. the immediate care. the plaintiff may and proximate recover cause damages. cause of his immediate uterus. expert anesthesiology. She did not injury. illustrates that it is of the excavation so the presence of the events was allowed to when RIL is availed of by possible to require expert warning signs could not have completely testify despite being a the plaintiff. that is. the Court did into an open excavation undertaken by diligence of the driver.Dr had complete and those within the common Manila Electric v. clearly within the domain injury. CA (1989) Held Ramos v. Doctor prescribed different kinds of Medical negligence cases are best medicine for a patient with sore eyes. Ramolete (2008) Held IV.Plaintiff submitted applies only to matters omitted act would have prevented the himself to the care. Art. 2179. PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE patient's womb. he cannot and proximate recover cause damages. He was not able to celebrate practice as the defendant physician.At time of submission. of the But ifthe injury being hisdefendant's negligence lack was of only duecontributory. while the doctor did. 2214. It has no with the electric wire of Meralco which qualified to repair the media agua. not to . failing to notice the uncovered was contributory to his injuries and went intubation problems when guidelines. The negligence. constitutes the proximate for applying RIL: Need for expert testimony cause only when the doing of the said . Tuaño (2009) Held that he may recover. Sps. Repair of a media agua caused a Death was primarily caused by his own . he cannot recover. to the patient was a steroid responder before (1) Standard of care to be implemented accident. proved by opinions of expert witnesses The latter developed steroid-induced belonging in the same general line of • If the proximate cause consists of the plaintiff’s negligence concurring with glaucoma. She eventually had to did not cause the rupture of patient's undergo a hysterectomy because of uterus. Bridwell not allow the testimony of PLDT. . When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his intra-abdominal bleeding and a ruptured In addition. He alleges the There was a failure to present expert • Bernardo v. did not present expert injury was patient's actions. deceberate and totally diagnosis/ treatment. The sps knew of the presence Her sister who witnessed testimony is relied upon. the plaintiff cannot recover the Christmas holidays. precluding him from recovering a gall bladder operation. anesthesiology. the need for testimony in a case prevented the accident. the plaintiff may testimony. occur in the process of the operation or in the absence of negligence   13 . by his own doctor was negligent in not checking if testimony to establish: carelessness contributes to the principal occurrence. Though generally. care. His negligence damage following the Voss v. but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. non-expert on intubation/ expert medical testimony covered by RIL. a dead fetus was left in the GYN/UP Prof) who testified that the D&C A. a pulmonologist because open trench because of the darkness to the very cause of the accident thus she was being prepped for he was not an expert in and lack of any warning light or signs. injury. 2179. based on Interestingly. was the immediate But if his negligence was only and proximatethe contributory. Remoquillo (1956) Held exclusive control over him knowledge of mankind. forgetting where he was injury rendering him involving the merits of a agua. evidently without looking. and control of Dr of medical science. custody. as one of the determining causes thereof. but he suffered applied. excavation. the negligence of the defendant. prescribing meds. butof the the injuryshall courts being the defendant's mitigate lack to the damages of be dueawarded.Injury ordinarily does not was not accomplished. Art. is dispensed with because Omission to perform a duty. or if recover damages. (2) Doctor failed to observe the standard (3) Failure to do so caused the injury PLDT v. the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages Lucas v. Widow and children filed suit to standing. holding the iron sheet. the proximate cause of the Art. CA (1999) Held Casis Critiques Sps. ran over a mound of earth and fell The accident was due to the lack of Patient sustained brain RIL applies here. This damages. Cayao-Lasam v. It was presumed that due to he was fit in mind and RIL is to be cautiously galvanized iron sheet came into contact his age and experience that he was body. such as the the injury itself provides placing of warning signs on the site of Voss v. Legaspi: If the plaintiff in a negligence action. and throwing incapacitated only the desired result all prudence and discretion to the winds. irreparable damage and application in a suit was parallel and 2 ½ feet from the media Unfortunately. person’s death by electrocution. DEFENSES AGAINST CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE . return for the follow-up evaluation. Despite a dilatation and curettage (D&C) The doctor presented an expert (OB- procedure.

station when the carbonera derailed. The The cyclist was not guilty of contributory held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence bicycle had no foot brakes. he contributes only to his own injury. Rakes v. he may recover. it negligence. If the proximate cause of the injury was the negligence of a third negligence of the party succeeding party. in cause harm or put his life in danger. 2. the plaintiff cannot recover from the defendant. the plaintiff can still recover from the defendant. contributing amputated. The tip of the pole tension wires were an accident waiting Laborer walked alongside 2 hand cars The laborer was negligent for noticing touched a wire which caused his death to happen. which falls below the standard Contributory negligence is one that which he is required to conform for his merely contributes to the plaintiff’s injury own protection. as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered. continuing work and for walking Contributory negligence is conduct on for damages from the electric company. is necessary to establish a causal link. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF Municipal Treasurer. breaking his leg which needed to be alongside the car instead of along the the part of the injured party. The heirs filed a claim the tie broke. the depression in the track yet by electrocution. he cannot recover. There is contributory negligence when Where he contributes to the principal the party’s act showed lack of ordinary occurrence. bamboo pole while walking under high. The track sagged. Distinguishing Contributory Negligence from Proximate Cause • Contributory negligence is negligence that is not the proximate cause of the Ma-Ao Sugar v. Definition of Contributory Negligence NPC v.H. Heirs of Casionan (2008) Held • Contributory negligence is one that merely contributes to the plaintiff’s Pocket miner was carrying a long There was no contributory negligence on injury but not to the principal occurrence. but not to the principal occurrence. conjunction with the occurrence. of an impending danger to health and o Not a complete defense because even with contributory body. injury. boards. municipal ordinance. The carbonera of a sugar central’s cargo There was negligence on the part of the • The guiding principle is still the Rakes distinction: train suddenly derailed causing its sugar central. The Atlantic (1907) Held which were already sagging 8-10 feet were properly maintained. to his injuries. Effect of Contributory Negligence would not have been injured if he stayed • Contributory negligence will not prevent plaintiff from recovering from in the front car rather that at the back defendant whose negligence was the proximate cause of the injury but the and that he was killed because he chose plaintiff’s award of damages would be mitigated. The train fell on its side which mere fact that he was not at his assigned occurrence or the cause of his injuries. B. CA (1990) Held injury and fails the applicable test for proximate cause. which carried rails. pinned him down and killed him. safety negligence and the driver of the car was gadgets or headlights as required by a solely responsible for the accident. To prove contributory negligence. It was pure speculation to suppose that he 3. The employee was not o Negligence is only contributory and not the proximate cause if it employee onboard to jump off to escape guilty of contributory negligence from the contributes to the victim’s injuries and not to the principal injury. Nor was it registered with the Office of the To hold a person as having contributed   14 . to ride in the carbonera. Sagging high from the ground. Where. the pocket miner’s part. it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his • The defendant may raise the defense that the plaintiff himself had injuries in disregard of warnings or signs contributory negligence. as one of its determining care and foresight that such act could factors. The accident tension electrical transmission lines would not have happened if the wires M. • Proximate cause of injury to plaintiff must be the negligence of the although not proximate between the defendant. • Underlying precept: A plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the Añonuevo v. 1. CA (2004) Held consequences of his own negligence and that the defendant must thus be Collision between a car and bicycle. and the rails slid off.

contributory negligence on the old • General Rule: No one is responsible for fortuitous events. Definition when the jeepney made a sudden left the abrupt and sudden left turn of the • Something which could not be foreseen. Brunty (2006) Held Casis Critiques return the jewelry upon testimony contradicted measures against A collision occurred The Court found that while Implies that there are at demand. Jorge (2007) Held Casis Critiques Contributory negligence is one that A pawnshop was The Court found that the Reasoning is erroneous merely contributes to the plaintiff’s injury robbed of cash and very measures the because but not to the principal occurrence. and was not wearing a shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen. they do not one being proximate and testified that there was fortuitous. 1174 is not only for the damages actually caused by pawned to the shop foreseeable but actually limited to his negligence. or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk. He can only recover were inevitable. when it hit proximate causal link is a vault with a bank for to guard against the the train. stipulation. 1174.Lambert v. CA (1989) Held A rig was going fast and trying to The Court convicted him of homicide Court confused existence of overtake the rig in front of him causing it through reckless imprudence. event is barred from necessary to establish a using it as a defense causal link. • Exceptions (L-SAR): In cases specified by law. protective helmet. safekeeping the effects of a fortuitous negligence. no person intoxicated. or which. Heirs of Ray Castillon (2005) Held C. Perhaps the not that he tried opening a undertakes measures curve ahead. Sicam v. To prove contributory remote cause. The collision. the part of the plaintiff is not available in criminal cases committed through 2. or when it is otherwise declared by driving at a high speed. although not while a negligent proximate. between the person who does not negligence of the party undertake measures and the succeeding injury. when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk   15 . when it is otherwise declared by stipulation. His 2. Except in cases expressly specified by the law. A diligent person who another car. jewelry from the pawnshop owner took 1. car was overtaking negate the railroad the other not proximate. sued the pawnshop foreseen and unforeseeable events owner for failing to anticipated. a security guard and 3. Act of taking PNR v. with a blind company’s liability. damages up to 50%. Genobiagon v. causing a collision and the death of jeepney however the motorcycle driver the motorcycle driver. his defense of fortuitous and event should no between a car and a train the acts of the driver of the least two types or event. or foreseen but inevitable turn. was guilty of contributory negligence for Art. which caused her Defense of contributory negligence on defense. it is still valuables. woman’s part. death. Defense and Exceptions The driver of the rig attributes reckless imprudence. FORTUITOUS EVENT A motorcycle was tailgating a jeepney The proximate cause of the collision was 1. though foreseen. tailgating. fortuitous event and to bump an old woman who was trying availability of fortuitous event to cross the street. The show that the possibility fortuitous event in The defendant must thus be held liable owner of jewelry of robbery was not only Art. can claim the event is fortuitous. bar one from arguing causing the death of a car contributed to the degrees of causality – Owner of the pawnshop that the event was passenger of the car. Definition of pawnshop vault.

  16 . Juntilla v. A truck bumped taking an extension seat or boarding an overloaded from any previous Why is the Court making the jeepney. filed a case for breach of tragedies of the seas When the effect is found contract against the jeep should not be to be partly the result of owner. The electric Held Casis Critiques company raised the defense of volenti The doctrine of assumption of risk does CA (1998) A typhoon blew the roof of The defense of fortuitous Negligence which non fit injuria. moving in a with and impending loss. Fontanar (1985) Held ventured into the waist-deep flood to The Court noted that she was merely The right rear tire of a jeepney. thrown out of the vehicle. fortuitous event to exempt application of the A passenger was sitting The Court did not agree No assumption of risk in a person from liability. CA (1989) Held Early morning after a typhoon. PLAINTIFF’S ASSUMPTION OF RISK (VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA) • HIRO • One who has assumed the risk of such an event cannot raise the defense of o Independent of human will fortuitous event. on an extension seat in a with the contention that taking an extension seat necessary that he be free jeepney. was wading through. destroying because no negligence on need not be an • The life or property of another is in portions of their roofing. For a “gross” to bar the Calalas v. It is not provide a reason. fortuitous event are present Ilocos Norte v. which the normal manner defendant may use in his defense. she suddenly was at hand as the deceased’s property. a woman Volenti non fit injuria was not applicable. seen dangling from a post. not apply when: a college’s building on a event was available “humanizes” the event • An emergency exists house. An electric wire was a source of her livelihood. An emergency passenger sitting at the front seat was flaws were discoverable. impossible to avoid • Philippine Jurisprudence appears to have adopted the common law concept of o Renders it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a assumption of risk or volenti non fit injuria on the part of the plaintiff. snake-like fashion.3. but the Court does negligence or misconduct the plaintiff prove passenger. 1174 assumed and for which he must take the o It must be established that all the essential requisites of a consequences. Hisole (1949) Held that one has committed no negligence or misconduct that may have Carabao caretaker was gored by one of The animal was in the custody and under occasioned the loss the animals which caused his death as a the control of the caretaker. greater risk by boarding an overloaded ferry. A caused by a mechanical defect if the have been damaged in her store. with the truck compensated merely the participation of man. The passenger injuries to victims of occasioned. As she property from the floods. • When a person seeks to rescue his filed a complaint for of the school building endangered property damages. exploded Common carrier is liable for an injury look after the merchandise that might exercising her right to protect her causing the vehicle to turn turtle. Three-Step Analysis causing injury or damage to anyone. injuring amounted to an implied ferry. The truck assumption of risk. • (t) I D E Being injured by the animal under those o Fortuitous event must be identified circumstances was one of the risks of o It must be determined if the circumstance falls within any of the the occupation which he had voluntarily three exceptions under Art. duty to try to prevent the animal form 4. He suffered screamed and sank. The antecedent negligence but peril The owners of the house original plans and design may be simultaneous. it is doctrine. The college were approved prior to Negligence need not be claims that the accident construction. o Obligor must be free from any participation • In order for a fortuitous event to exempt one from liability. o Impossible to foresee or if foreseen. owner as third party because those the whole occurrence is defendant. its part was proven. was faced injuries and lost his Omega watch. CA (2000) Held Casis Critiques was a fortuitous event. Elements D. It was his consequence of the injuries. Southeastern College v. it is necessary Afialda v. by reason of which the negligence? driver and owner were akin to arguing that the loss may have been held liable. passengers assumed a hereby humanized.

Volenti non fit injuria was It seems the Court made a A. owners of the fishing boat instituted a consuming the bus and produces the injury. The trip to Amsterdam had consequence of their decision to make o Pilipinas Bank v. The them carrying a lighted the liability of the carrier. Nikko Hotel v. defendant be the cause of the injury able to hear. without which the result the inter-island vessel moved to dismiss would not have occurred. Reyes (2005) An actor allegedly gate. a fishing boat collided The Court held that the action is barred road and turned turtle. the death was the discussion on proximate with an inter-island vessel. unbroken by any efficient the collision. they must have o Mercury Drug v. DIFFERENT CATEGORIES crashed a hotel’s private not applicable because counter-defense: defense party. 19. Medina: the cause. PRESCRIPTION predecessor or is part of a natural and continuous sequence o The chain must be unbroken by an efficient intervening cause Art. The become annoyed and irritated with him. cause was irrelevant as to Marine Inquiry conducted an when the cause of action accrued. • Art. The hotel o A cause without which the injury would not have occurred. He treat him fairly in order not of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the filed a complaint based to expose him to defendant and injury to the plaintiff. in natural concluded that the negligence of the fueled with petroleum. to be reckoned from Men came with one of overturning of the bus. The Board of by prescription. consequence credit card company. 19 and 21 of the Civil of action is based on Arts. CA (1989) Held or ditch on the side of the The proximate cause of carriage thus the On Apr. activity. Proximate was told by the executive assumed the risk. company liable for the the action as anchored on zag until it fell into a canal death of the passengers. the a fire started burning and intervening cause. 1976. and without which the result would not have occurred diamond pieces using their American with the purchase. They could have cancelled the sale but did similar injury. On Oct. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff. 1985. investigation. CA: foreseen or reasonably anticipated by a to be cancelled. American Express (2010) Held o Bataclan v. intervening cause. with a wick on the end. in natural and continuous While on a European tour. On May 30. Roberto Held Casis Critiques V. 1146. the BMI determination of an administrative body. the hotel was still 19 and 21. At any time they person of ordinary case that the injury complained of or some annoyed and irritated with them. • Based on jurisprudence. Bataclan v. THE CAUSE . the same must be brought within one (1) year. under available when the cause secretary. foreseeable otherwise 45 minutes.   17 . consequence Pantaleon v. 10 minutes before their tour known that the group would naturally natural and continuous sequence. more aggrieved party need not wait for the torch made of bamboo Proximate cause is that than 4 years after the incident. to leave for under the obligation to o Jurisprudence requires that the injured party proves a connection he was not invited. which. produces and his family attempted to purchase be applicable. in a loud voice Arts. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. or conduct of any public officer (1957) involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from Martial Law including the arrest. a rich man The Court ruled volenti non fit injuria to sequence. which. 2176 requires that it be proven that the act or omission of the and with the other guests Code. The owners of the passengers left inside. He claimed that he even if respondent of assumption of risk not 1. As and continuous sequence. Medina Held Casis Critiques However. unbroken by any efficient group had to leave for Amsterdam. (2) Upon a quasi-delict. and complaint for damages. when the action arises from or out of any act. 8. burst and it began to zig. • Requirements (C U!) o Each event must have a causal connection with its immediate E. a proximate cause is defined as: provision. on the ground of prescription. 1981. would result therefrom as a natural and probable filed an action for damages against the not. The tour group was the tour group wait. One of the tires of a bus The Court held the bus The Court characterized detention and/or trial of the plaintiff. cause. When they pushed through the injury. Baking: any cause that produces injury in a Express. on the human relations unnecessary ridicule. inter-island vessel’s employees caused they approached the bus. the breach of contract of Kramer v. such that the result would not have occurred purchases were approved by only after This was the natural. and invoked volenti non fit o Results in the injury as a foreseeable and natural and probable injuria.

so the Court quoted the trial court responsible. that his negligence concurs with that of the plaintiff. is it sufficient that it the surname of the owner the name of another negligence was the compulsory pilotage of combines with another of the wrong account was depositor who had a proximate cause. The and therefore solely cause or must it deposit slip. but with the correct name. Remote • Def. independently be a deposit was credited to that the employee should proximate cause by itself? him. Checks were have continuously gone dishonored because of beyond mere assumption • Casis Critiques: Arguing a person’s negligence is merely a concurring cause this. Baking 2. was the bank employee’s explains why the bank comprise the proximate The bookkeeper of the negligence in erroneously employee was negligent Owner of vessel argues cause of the injury. Domicum. had there been no efficient intervening cause after it and prior to the injury. Bow of the cause. Inconsistent with Pilipinas Bank v. board for the safe berthing negligent. actor if both acts one proximate cause. and proceeded with clear does not absolve one of liability. It is sufficient that his negligence. negligent acts concurring with each other. Exception is when the defendant argues certainty. Manila Electric v. Concurrent Held Casis Critiques (2007) Pharmacist misread the The Court found the Around three days had • The negligence in order to render a person liable need not be the sole cause prescription for Diamicron pharmacist negligent in already lapsed from the of an injury. purchaser took the the collision. A cause which would have been a proximate cause. Remoquillo (1956) Held Media agua + galvanized iron sheet What determines the existence of a remote cause is not the nature of such cause itself but whether or not there is an efficient intervening cause. Mercury Drug v.   18 . CA (1998) Held Casis Critiques while driving which Supervising captain and The Court found that Implication that each caused a vehicular master of vessel both on both Captains were concurring cause must by accident. concurring with one or more and instead sold selling the wrong time of the negligent act efficient causes other than plaintiff’s is the proximate cause. a potent medication. CA vessel rammed into the The liability of one actor earlier statement of the Held Casis Critiques (1994) pier causing considerable is not affected by the Court that each concurrent The deposit slip had the The proximate cause of The paragraph quoted damage to both the pier negligence of another cause is a component of wrong account number the dishonored checks from the trial court only and the vessel. The the proximate cause of as the proximate cause. which was determined by the Court o There is only one proximate cause. the supervising captain cause to form a proximate different from that on the similar first name. In order to be a concurrent bank did not notice that posting the cash deposit in but not why the that vessel was under cause. 3. but it may consist of two sleeping tablet. itself be a proximate of the vessel. • The existence of another efficient cause does not make a cause less medicine for three proximate consecutive days which caused him to fall asleep Far Eastern v.

Mixed Consideration ordinary human experience is reasonably to be anticipated. Original passenger proximate cause. the substantial portion of the highway. Driver tried to pull the horse would not make him remote. Ching: There is no exact mathematical formula to determine the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances proximate cause. causing it to The Court found that the driver of the ANECO v. So far as it out onto the street and blocking truck was parked. sticking negligent manner in which the dump decisions. common o The defendant is responsible because such cause is within the sense. Cause vs. The collision of the car has any validity at all. and some new force intervenes. Araneta (1921) Held Casis Critiques B. but the distinction is now almost entirely discredited. Plaintiff must establish a sufficient link were negligent in allowing the antenna high-tension wires. TESTS TO DETERMINE PROXIMATE CAUSE Argument about who The Court ruled that the The Court looked at the called the carromata first. It is based upon mixed considerations of logic. The car smashed into with the dump truck was a natural and in operation by the defendant have come to rest in a position of apparent the dump truck. Substantial Factor • The defendant’s conduct is a cause of the event if it was a material element • Test to determine if the defendant is still liable despite an intervening cause and a substantial factor in bringing it about o Whether the intervention of the later cause is a significant party of • Casis Critiques: The problem with this test is that negligence is not a the risk involved in the defendant’s conduct or is so reasonably substance that can be measured connected with it that the responsibility should not be terminated. foreseeable consequence of the truck safety. But for/sine qua non Angry guy grabbed the guy interfered with the deciding that a cause is • An act or omission is not regarded as a cause of an event if the particular reins to stop the horse. Dy Teban v. it must refer to the type of case where the forces set oncoming traffic. Electric company foreseen that. No askew on the right side of the national antenna touching an electric company’s electric company should have reasonably early warning device. IAC (1987) Held anything is sees fit. Sufficient Link became disturbed and as to whether a particular • Requires only some reasonable connection between the act or omission eventually ran at full act was considered a and the injury speed. Gabeto v. The the difficulty of proving causation driver got out to fix the Time and control over the bridle but the horse vehicle was determinative 2. carromata by stopping the not proximate but event would have occurred without it. or one which • Dy Teban v. Balen (2009) Held be parked askew. main distribution line. driver’s negligence. policy. liability will attach. considering that the wires remote or far-fetched. a potential risk still between the act or omission and the to touch the wires. mere fact that the angry timing element in 1. • Foreseeable Intervening Causes: If the intervening cause is one which in 4. existed that people would get damage or injury. • Casis Critiques: It may be an admission that there really is not test to determine proximate cause and the Court can base its determination on Phoenix Construction v. otherwise. Intervening 3. scope of the original risk. Volkswagen was on its way home and The Court found that the driver of the car turned off its headlights because it did was negligent but ruled that the 5. requiring definite proof would immunize culpable defendants because of the horse’s mouth. A dump truck proximate cause was the wrongful or • Phoenix v. and precedent. occupying a prime mover was negligent in parking Death and injuries caused by the TV Applying the foreseeability test. IAC: “Cause” and “condition” still find occasional mention in the was earlier left parked askew. even if it complied with the swerved to avoid the parked prime mover denies liability claiming that the victims clearance requirements installing the but instead hit another van. and hence of the defendant’s negligence. • Casis Critiques: Courts have not rigorously required the but for test in cases reins to free the horse liable for the death of the involving multiple defendants or professional misconduct because and the bit came out of original passenger. no were not insulated.   19 . • Not required that it be shown that the injury would not have occurred jumped or fell from the rig without the act or omission complained of causing his death. Passenger bus highway. Jose Ching (2008) Held Prime move’s tire exploded. 4. Condition not have a curfew pass. That link must not be electrocuted.

breaking its leg. When it came too 2 parties were not defendant. complying with the horse. pony by an appreciable ascertain the identity of the causing the car to hit interval. the of the defendant. (Court proximate cause of the Picart v. Not employed mortgage over the lots the impostors who had no whether the negligent act side. The horse was succeeded the negligent requirements for banks to frightened and turned. It is perhaps in cases have. a test for proximate cause. Smith: The person who has the last fair chance to avoid passengers of the jeep. avoided the injury hence the injuries. Last Clear Chance Phoenix v. horse died. other party. Mann “last clear chance” of act and the character and • Doctrine allows for recovery by a negligent plaintiff If the defendant could avoiding the accident. by employing proper care. who After determining that the Doctrine of last clear chance was still valid) was on the wrong side of car was negligent. defendant were negligent. persons transacting with him. Common law lots sued to annul the chance to prevent the close it suddenly moved contemporaneous because doctrine imported as mortgage. IAC (1987) Held Casis Critiques Volkswagen collided with The Court pointed out that The Court was saying • Casis Critiques: It is. Truck was Court continues to apply impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. History and Rationale driver was negligent in question of determining jurisdiction. fraud by faithfully to avoid hitting the the negligence of the car early as this case. speed. bank The bank was negligent in Applied last clear chance time to get to the other was guilty of antecedent the proximate cause of granted loan secured by a verifying the real identity of as a means to determine side so it stayed on its negligence in planting the injury. without reference to the prior negligence of the to avoid the accident. parked truck. IAC (1989) Held Casis Critiques o The antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude him Collision between jeep and The Court found the driver Despite the Court’s from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence cargo truck approaching of the jeep guilty of misgivings in Phoenix. the actor who had the last The doctrine of last clear fair chance of avoiding chance provides a valid the harm would be and complete defense to deemed to have been C. The horseman pointed out that the horse means to determine Canlas v. which happened last but no reason to apply the • Common law origin. The Court noted plaintiff to recover but to When the lots were the defendant was the move so he didn’t reduce that the negligent acts of the point the blame to the foreclosed. who had the last fair chance to prevent the each other on a bridge. o Picart v. Smith. L   20 . the Volkswagen had the the nature of the negligent rule here.6. then there is parking the truck askew. gravity of the risks created. Statement of the Rule chance applies. APPLICATION TO THIS JURISDICTION accident liability as it did responsible for the in Picart v. The car assumed himself on the wrong side of to allow the negligent belonging to another. where the gravity of the • Real explanation: Fundamental dislike for the harshness of the contributory negligent acts are negligence defense relatively equal where the doctrine of last clear b. of the plaintiff or that of that the horse would the road. thus the driver of the jeep the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the had the last clear chance Test: If both plaintiff and consequences. first stated in 1842 in the English case of Davies v. • Effect on the plaintiff’s right to recover Glan v. IDs. the Court chance was used as a the road. at best. true owner of Bank had the last clear proximate cause. CA (2000) Held Casis Critiques thought he did not have was not free from fault for he which negligent act was Through impostors. which resulted in the already at full stop when the doctrine in • Manner of establishing the liability of the defendant death of one of the the jeep plowed into it subsequent cases. Truck owner the determination of that if the reason for the argued that while its proximate cause is not a rule did not exist in this a. Smith (1918) Held Casis Critiques ruled that last clear injury. The them. negligence. Car hit horseman.

Lower neither the contributory negligence of serious physical injuries found the presence of an chance to a criminal case. It Court still applied the negotiating a curve and of the impending danger. emergency rule. drivers of the colliding vehicles. convincing evidence to that the Court found no then an unauthorized withdrawal was inapplicable because it is not available Criminal case was filed support the invocation of problem applying the made. consequences. Several passengers of the brought by the heirs of the deceased traffic. bus were thrown out and died. The by faithfully observing show that the person who President filed a their self-imposed Bus argued that driver of allegedly had the last collection suit to demand validation procedure. negligent act of one is care. emergency and the proper doctrine of last clear chance. CA (1991) Held Lapanday v. the one who had the last injury cannot be avoided by clear opportunity to avoid the application of all means the impending harm and at hand after peril is or failed to do so is should have been chargeable with the discovered. Courts found the bank liable by using the the plaintiff not his last clear chance to and damage to property. where against the pick-up for the doctrine and instead doctrine of last clear to recover the amount withdrawn. Under the doctrine of the Despite the determination Bus encroached on There was nothing to show The last clear chance entrusted funds to his last clear chance. opportunity to avoid the secretary instead opportunity to avert the chance. Passengers of the For the doctrine to be injury. The car smashed into the dump the vehicle in front of him. CA (1997) (1989) President of company. avoid the loss. and signed the appreciably later in time deposit slips despite the than that of the other. the defendant had not in their bank account. Heirs of passengers against both owners and truck. Bus driver saw the front the defendants because this case was not have a curfew pass. CA (2003) Held Casis Critiques Consolidated Bank v. CA (2003) Held Collision between a The Court found no A significance is the fact Teller gave passbook to another person Doctrine of last clear chance Tamaraw and a pick-up. the bank of proximate cause. The had the last clear doctrine of last clear collided with it. the passenger jeepney opportunity to avert the the return of the money had the last clear chance accident was aware of the from the bank. applicable. jeepney died. Bank of Commerce Pantranco v. wheels of vehicle and that the truck was not a suit between the owners and was earlier left parked askew. Baesa Held Casis Critiques Held Casis Critiques v. True owner of the passbook sued in cases of culpa contractual. Phil. it is necessary to husband's account. have been aware of it. sticking out He had full control of the situation heading towards his lane but he thought drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit onto the street and blocking oncoming because he was in a position to observe it was a joke.   21 . or The last clear chance glaring fact that the when it is impossible to doctrine can never apply duplicate copy was not determine whose fault or where the party charged is completely accomplished negligence should be required to act and contrary to the bank’s attributed to the incident. stamped. and if the procedure. Where both parties are to avoid the collision and existence of the peril or negligent. should. instantaneously.   Engada v. Angala (2007) Held Collision between truck and passenger The appellate court erred in applying the Volkswagen was on its way home and The Court ruled that the crewcab had bus coming from opposite directions of doctrine of last clear chance as between turned off its headlights because it did the last clear chance to avoid the the highway. but the was therefore negligent. deceased filed a complaint. A dump truck collision because it was the rear vehicle. would exonerate the application of the defendant from liability. the jeepney’s lane while that the jeepney driver knew doctrine does not apply if secretary to be deposited was the culpable party. with exercise of due Bank teller validated. deposited the funds to her injury incurred by its client. Bustamante v.

The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes omissions. Interestingly. VI. so long as they remain establishments of arts and • Basis: They stand in loco parentis and are called upon to exercise in their custody trades reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned • Does not require that the student be of minority age prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. which is the basis of its liability in torts) • Not required that the student/pupil must live and board in school 1. Minors or incapacitated persons who are under their FC 221. mother (FC 221: "unemancipated children living in their company heads of children's homes. Art. TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS State Special agent Teachers or heads of 1. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian. 3. as provided in Art. 2. the following person shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated: who are responsible for the negligence of others (1) The surviving grandparent. parents were the indispensable parties (adoptive parents were then in the US). 214. The school itself responsibility to supervise Pending adoption. despite his student killed his school heads and "teacher" liable. unless unfit or disqualified. adoption only if essential to permit some that for liability to attach. 2180. the Court himself using his dad's gun. Civil liability of classmate during recess. supra   22 . Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the Guardians authority and live in their company injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in Owners and managers of an Employees in the service of the branches in which the latter their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided establishment or enterprise are employed or on the occasion of their functions by law. Employees and household helpers acting within the scope of Employers their assigned tasks. It was only as parents in not diligently supervising automotive mechanics protective custody of the held both "head" and afterwards that his parents the gun was the activities of their son. unless unfit or disqualified. 2180. His authority was still lodged in natural because it was not time they are in school. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry B. the pupil/student must live and board in the school. PERSONS EXERCISING PARENTAL AUTHORITY authority of the school. and (3) The child's actual custodian. parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial proceedings to incapacity. IAC (1992) Held Held Casis Critiques (1971) Teenager shot his ex-girlfriend and Sps were gravely remiss in their duties Through fist blows. but in case of death/ Minor children who live in their company similarly situated. over twenty-one years of age. Parents Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control but refers more to • Parental liability is a natural/ logical consequence of parental authority the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him • Consists. an In the law of torts. missing and that he was a CANU agent. Person Vicariously Liable For the Damages Caused By FC 217. Under the Civil Code Pupils and students or apprentices. to a large extent. necessary. IAC (1992) Held liable. abandoned neglected or abused children and other children Father. Brillantes Libi v. orphanages and similar institutions duly accredited by the proper (FC 221: both parents liable) and under their parental authority") government agency. school and the teacher parents. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. over twenty-one years of age. In case of foundlings. since parental authority had shifted from Retroactive effect may be given to the Nothing in the law requires the moment of filing of the petition. Other Persons Exercising Parental Authority Vicarious liability: liability of certain persons FC 216. Guardians .see Art. Rationale: they are morally culpable for those under their absolute/limited control (2) The oldest brother or sister. teachers is mandatorily parents for quasi-delicts committed by Court held the head of the substituted for that of the their minor kids is primary and solidary. hence it is their Tamargo v. 10y/o boy shot a girl. PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE . of the instruction and supervision of the child Palisoc v. benefit to accrue to the child. minority and immaturity. natural parents claim that the adoptive parents who had actual physical custody properly impleaded. o (JBL Reyes' separate opinion in Amadora: a student over the age of 21 places himself under custodial supervision and disciplinary A. including recess time. the same order of preference shall be observed. Shooting occurred when parental could not be held liable the students the whole Petition for adoption was granted.

Here. the same measure of allowed the minor student responsibility imposed on to drive the jeep. the proximate required a finding that the to prevent the damage. They failed to exercise the commerce student Abon activities where the Court used a provision his eyes. 219 as semr has not yet begun or is up to him to prove that were riding turned turtle. Held Casis Critiques none of the respondents he be under the control teacher-in-charge was Carpitanos (2002) were liable because none and influence of the negligent. the Court of them was the teacher. was still in the custody of Not required that the the school at the time of student be boarding in Also. it is not required that the shooting. St. CA (1988) Held Casis Critiques 2. the A student participating in There must be a finding Thus.not providing protective gears and attendance in the school" dismissal. 2180 should apply to all This focus on Amadora Daffon shot his schools. Under 2180. Also. whether the offending child while under their supervision. Recess by its the student. school and within its person vicariously liable is an enrollment drive was that the negligent considered the liability of in-charge. evidence that the school of the injury. chemically burning mishap. and cause was a mechanical negligence of the school The Court is disposed not the steering wheel guide defect. its administrators and teachers. was misplaced as what FC 218. within call of his mentor liability of teachers to instructions not to look directly into the . academic. the Court affirmed the finding . not equal in degree. Court held the teacher and the higher degree incumbent upon them. he exercised due diligence At the time. However.. premises of the school. Mary's Academy v. IAC (1988) Held Casis Critiques Teacher left her class while doing a The proximate cause of the injury was After dismissal and in A "recess" contemplates a It appears that the science experiment. experiments in class considered to be "at nature does not include . proximate cause of the a quasi-delict. there was no was the proximate cause to expect from the teacher got detached. pupil was still in the Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the Court ruled that Amadora custody of the school. whether the presumed negligent and it killed when the jeep they act/omission was the parents under Art. situation of temporary application of 2180 here was looking into a test tube when its the teacher to prevent the foreseeable ROTC armorer/ adjournment of school was erroneous as the contents spurted out. It could have used dangerous nature of science experiments could not be held liable or the area within which Art. damage and injury. A grade 6 student the concurrent failure of the school and BCF's parking space. Amadora v. matters under 2180 is engaged in child care shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor the school auditorium. 218 of the Family However. Miranda (2010) Held Salvosa v. which has already ended.not installing safety measures to under 2180 because the school activity is Code. it was driven injury. of contributory negligence on the part of protect the students who conduct Abon could not be conducted. premises. entity or institution. charge is liable. It was the parent for their the grandson of the jeep influence on the child is owner. as shot a student of the student still remains regarding the vicarious school liable despite teacher's specific shown by: University of Baguio. teacher-in. school. by a fellow student. head is liable. .not taking affirmative steps to avert and his not permitted to determine liability of a heated compound. or being in the premises of the whole time her class conducted the a school without more experiment does not constitute "attending school" or being in the "protective and supervisory custody" of the school. Under the Family Code After the sem had ended.   23 . the devices (goggles) or in the custody of BCF mere fact of being enrolled . Joseph's College v. Likewise. The school. or the individual. school.teacher's not being in the classroom when he shot Castro. instruction or custody. who did so. but required that the claimant prove that the St. entity or institution classmate Amadora in If academic. knowing the Court ruled that BCF leave the school premises. If non. academic or not.

For purposes of apportioning liability in driving at the time of the could not possibly offered 2008 .1st MR medical negligence cases. he is liable because of his own negligence. more or less) hospitals and their visiting physicians.   24 . IAC) • The employer need not prove that his employee was not acting within the 1. A between the mayor and driving the vehicle to and The Court also noted that test to determine the fellow employee with a the driver. Rule X. Even if there were. 92) Held Casis Critiques o The term "manager" (Spanish. no vicarious liability. 5 is an expansion of Par. 5: Employers . the school still would not time as a janitor for the be liable because driving 2. "employer". Within the Scope of Assigned Tasks • Includes any act done by an employee in furtherance of the interests of the • The employers' liability is not based on the principle of respondeat superior. Jayme v. Agana Held is sufficient that the act of in hindsight. Phil. over the vehicle. It is certainly from the house of the the school failed to prove existence of an employer. employer or for the account of the employer at the time of the infliction of In this jurisdiction. Employer-Employee Relationship exchange for free tuition. over a minor. • Cannot be assumed. there is taking control over its liable not under respondeat superior but insufficient evidence that PSI exercised vehicles if one is not the under the principle of ostensible agency. He employees against the use need not have an official of its vehicles by persons appointment as a driver. this interpretation renders Par. incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove by preponderant His task was to sweep the It seems that the Court MR: Rule X is merely a evidence. the school 2007. However. the injury or damage (Filamer v. denial is enough • Par. C. not driven by the school's employer-employee • Par. It other than the driver. student driver's permit. It is not decisive in a because the Omnibus (2008) Speeding pickup truck The municipality is the Explaining 2180 through and the student. of the process by which physician is to one of its employees from Ampil's employer. Apostol hours every morning. Applying the control test. would have contradicted (same doctrine. the existence of the driver.2nd MR Employer-employee relationship exists if The school did not set student was not its hospital controls both means and details forth rules prohibiting any employee. that PSI held out Dr. Mere common law authorities is initially exculpated the cannot be used by an not explain why the and driven by an employee giving of directions does not proper bec the latter is school.injuries caused by employees in the service of the branches/ on the occasion of their functions Filamer v.injuries caused by employees/household helpers within driver but by a working relationship between the the scope of assigned tasks. Here. 4 redundant and useless. Court said Par. 4. It was Omnibus Rules. Defendant is under no obligation to prove the negative averment. v. Bk. under the substantive based on applicable rules. Neither what the Court means by applied here. When Applicable school/ houseboy for the the school vehicle was not school president in within the ambit of his a. Parents passenger has control superior.2 gauze pads left in patient's body. OWNERS/ MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS/ EMPLOYERS b. It did taking mayor to the airport lawful employer. The manager of a corporation is not included. "director") is used in the sense of School's jeep with only Under Sec. driver. But Professional Services Inc. Ampil as its agent. though not engaged in business/ industry scholar who only had a working scholar and the o In Castilex v. its position that the 2010 . assigned tasks. PSI is not Dr. IAC (1990. he one working headlight hit III of the Labor Code's himself is only an employee (Phil Rabbit v. 4: Owner/manager of establishment/enterprise . Court civil suit for damages and Rules did not apply. there is no o Injury must have been caused while employee was doing his job. 14. of the substantive law on an employer simply Held Casis Critiques Victim sued the school labor. and mayor. it isn't clear provisions of the CC The control test was not sued owner. Distinguishing the 4th and 5th Paragraphs scope of his assigned tasks. the power of control. American) an 82y/o teacher. Also. school passages for 2 ruled that the school was guide to the enforcement Sps. school. right to control the not required that the school president was an that it had imposed employee relationship b/w injuring employee incurs mayor be responsible for act in furtherance of the sanctions/ warned its mayor and driver. possessor. Vasquez. does it make one the "causal relationship" The student's act of Court applied the four-fold employer of the driver. but reversed itself employer to void liability student was an employee of the municipality ran not establish that the not based on respondeat on MR. But PSI still solidarily accomplish his task. but ample evidence official driver. an employer- incident was for the such evidence because it employee relationship exists between benefit of the school. interest of the school. The latter worked part.

of the driver/ contractor. Going to and from the place of work proficiency and history. private purposes of the employee relationship was employees of the labor. NPC provisions on labor-only Court held the employer company car for business and NPC by statute.Employer is generally not liable for the could give rise to outside of the workplace. CA (1998) Held Casis Critiques Valenzuela v. NPC v. CA Held Casis Critiques NPC-owned dump truck Quoting Filamer. Castilex's Production Manager Principles in American Jurisprudence on responsibly. Manager unlimited use of a collided head-on with a the Labor Code. not quasi-delicts. evidence of due his being only 29 y/o). will establish an employer. he employee in the use of a company car: ACI did not demonstrate ruling that if a case made a shortcut against the flow of that it exercised the care involves injuries caused traffic and hit a motorcycle (a woman in 1. his co-worker may have had a different arrangement. His parents sued the manager of some special benefit to the employer car to the employee. company's image. drove a company car to a "lively" employer's liability for negligence of an The Court appears to be restaurant.Not ordinarily acting within scope of father of the family in car. any negligent act of the One distinction that can out from under the car. work strategies. tire fixed. Going to and from meals and diligence of a good by the use of a company his car shouted "Daddy. the Court . this when co-workers meet purpose not in line with his duties. When he was leaving. the Court The Court used a Labor Alexander Commercial. Employer loans vehicle for employee's Even if he did come from This ruling suggests that Abad was carrying out a personal personal use outside working hours officemate's place. It did and supervision of and Castilex. In providing a established between him only contractor. The determine the liability of employer relationship but was standing at the rear of serves the business and truck driver was employed NPC in a civil suit for also said that Civil Code her car.'s Asst. it responsibility to the public Code. be made is that here. It must be pointed discussing sales or other out that although Asst. discussed principles from American . Manager had no regular office hours. Daddy!" despite . trying to have her goodwill of a company by a labor-only contractor. bumped a woman who company car principally Toyota Tamaraw. The motorcycle employment in the absence of evidence entrusting its company diligence in the selection rider died. damages resulting from provisions should govern.Employer not liable if employee left the appointment? Should not merely gives rise to the presumption juris direct route to his work/ home and is this be the job of the tantum of negligence on the employer's pursuing a personal errand claimant? part. . 106-109. NPC could have disclaimed contracting are in the solidarily liable with the use/ to further the argued its liability should liability had it raised the substantive law on labor employee."Special errand"/ "roving commission" Jurisprudence. 3. Vasquez (2008) Held the car capably and After OT. a only be limited to defense of due diligence in (Arts. The individual. because places of work/ circulate in a general visit was a bare allegation. employee's negligent use of the car speculation that they the presumption is that came from a work-related the meeting is work- function or were related. 2180. The provision for the that was part of a convoy ruled that Art. not ascertain his driving employees on the part of 2.   25 . She was pulled and only incidentally the hence an employer. Labor company owes a violations of the Labor the selection/ supervision Code) while in Filamer. not Code provision to Inc. was an implementing rule. These principles are rule: employee's duties require him to The employee's claim that But is the employee applicable in the PH albeit based on the go to and from home to various outside he came from a social required to prove that he doctrine of respondeat superior. the employer would not be In absolving Castilex. the Her leg was severed.Same as in #1 enough. to see to it that the employees are able to use Castilex v. came from an whether or not the fault/negligence of the area with no fixed place/ hours of work employment-related employee is conclusive on his employer .

Truck driver only had a . State is liable only Another question is Traffic Violation Receipt because his . Selection . both governmental and actual driving tests. He should have carefully examined that the act was caused attainable through official his legal duty as an employer in the the driver's qualifications. Dissent of Perfecto. collects revenue. All other Court here upheld the Simpler test: consider only A grade 4 student found himself locked The defense of due diligence in the entities are special agents. suitable rules and Rosete v.Essentially requires that the employer: his office if he is a special official" o Formulate standard operating procedures. not executive. Casis Critiques (1948) o Monitor their implementation. experiences. Fontanilla v. functions and hence.Last seminar attended was 12 yrs. whether agent is "special". This test this prior incident was reported. and a psych exam. by a special agent. ambulance was not a special agent for service and in the appointment of its which it could be held vicariously liable. dissent in the said case. and record of service. and is reprimand him). Apostol Held Casis Critiques through and landed 3 floors below. J. Court held ordinarily ungovernmental left middle finger was cut off. 2180. selection and supervision of his driver. THE STATE • Once the employee is found liable for a quasi-delict while acting within the • Vicariously liable only when it acts through a special agent scope of his assigned tasks. Mercury Drug testified Mercury drug failed to show that it NIA: Based on the Angat business only for the nearly impossible to apply on its hiring procedure. Maliaman Held Casis Critiques 1989 case: 2 aspects of State liability: What can/cannot be Mercury Drug v.He took the tests for a different position sued for damages. The Court driver's license. State is only liable for acts of a a. Limon (2005) Held means the GRP. it was proven that: bicycle. functions and why a school. He employer is held responsible for Speeding pickup truck A municipality may not be It is unclear from the facts was hospitalized and treated for multiple acts/omissions of its employees under taking mayor to the airport sued because it is an how the Court determined injuries. NIA is an agency within their limits. with gov't functions. destroyed other the government. such a case. Employer should not have been satisfied some of the buildings filed purposes which were governmental functions. Jeepney's front passenger "noticed" his by the mere possession of a professional for damages. on Admin Code. and service records definite and fixed order/ commission. Government (1916) Held General Hospital's ambulance made a Neither fault nor even negligence can be 4.   26 . agent because in experience.He used a light vehicle during the tests held that NIA was a gov't for special agents whether a particular license had been confiscated (previously . Huang (2007) Held NIA's pickup bumped a 1. immune from suit. and A fire from the warehouse ECA is a special agent. Court gov't. pertaining to the school's own of the municipality ran engaged in governmental performing governmental and the Administrative Officer of the negligence in not ensuring that all its over a minor. service should only be apprehended for reckless driving. employees. Rider's parents can be performed only by sector = highly debatable. b. and driven by an employee agency of the State that the driver was Art. He was duty-bound to do that there was no showing in character and were not found no proof that the truck owner did more. It was an special agent is one Lampesa v. if any.3. Rebuttal of Presumption sudden turn and hit a motorcycle rider. his employer is immediately disputably presumed to be negligent in the selection/supervision of his employee Merritt v. driven by a 16y/o. agents. handled by the private Mercury Drug truck collided with a car As regards the driver. private vehicle was used. note: . It It seems that in Justice o Impose disciplinary measures for their breach of ECA. ago ordinary employer would make the State's Mercury Drug did not suspend or . Supervision . functions.No backup driver for long trips 1991 MR: Irrigation districts conduct liability uncertain. a agency. presumed on the part of the state in the Court held that the chauffeur of the organization of branches of the public • Employer must present adequate and convincing proof that he exercised due care and diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees. His parents filed an action under Art. but he fell right not apply. issuance of proper instructions.NBI and police clearances not shown proprietary functions. Jayme v. He tried to open the selection/supervision of employees does window to call for help. Special agent: "one who receives a special. a government was not a branch/office of Perfecto's opinion.Employer is required to examine them as to their qualifications.Tests conducted were inadequate agency exercising 2. "State" Child Learning Center v. saying applicants exercised due diligence in the River Irrigation System private benefit of the lands if the gov't agency does are required to take theoretical and supervision and discipline over its case. Feliciano separate: Based non-governmental tasks. inside the CR. It only applies where the Sps. the fault/ negligence must foreign to the exercise of the duties of be presumed to lie with the State. Public/ governmental . but . Auditor General regulations. Presumption of Negligence D. doors were maintained. De Vera (2008) Held buildings. An owner of agency set up for specific performing non- Truck slid back down towards a jeepney. This case was based on Art. 2176 against the Board of Directors 2176. liable as done by gov't. Private/proprietary .

owner. reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it. 2184: his • Due diligence defense not provided. liability based on policy considerations omission to do that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident (Caedo v. a Cadillac tried to overtake be sought in the owners are required a a rig (carretela) but immediate setting and certain degree of diligence bumped the rig's left circumstances of the in supervising their drivers wheel. of the owner. The family in the Mercury notice of the danger but The degree would depend car sued the Cadillac also sufficient time to act on their circumstances. Note that the Caedo v. must Court imply that car tame.   27 . The Court would have to look at the personal circumstances of the • Possessor's responsibility arises from fact that the animal is within his control. if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction. himself was injured. It delicts. B. A 3y/o girl was bitten by a dog that was What must be determined is possession. • It is arguable that although these provisions are found in the chapter on quasi- who was in the vehicle. the chauffeur negligent. in his failure (cannot absolve dragging it along as it to detain the driver from themselves by saying that skidded to the opposite pursuing a course which they were not paying lane and hit a Mercury car. • The test of W/N owner was negligent within the meaning of Art. not apply where the possessor of the animal turn and struck Chapman who was having a reasonable opportunity to caretaker of the animal cannot invoke Art. 54/EDSA. although it may escape or be lost. if he had been found guilty or reckless Art. In motor vehicle mishaps. • Not based on respondeat superior but by the relationship of pater familias. Art. VII. 2176 anyway). without the owner gored. car owner with poor Cadillac driver was found reason for the car owner eyesight and cannot drive to be negligent. 2184. POSSESSOR OR USER OF ANIMALS The negligence of the servant. against the owner. (Caedo v. Hisole (1949) Held Casis Critiques Chapman v. not only gave him clear attention to driver's acts). to be in any special state will not be held to same of alert. hence no need to comply with quasi-delict requisites driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. in the neighbors' possession. by the use of the due diligence. Neighbors regardless of ownership. Court found prevent the act or to stop its continuance. could have. wrenching it off and accident. but Underwood the latter is not responsible.g.e. Instead of The negligence on the part These statements by the remote control. prevented the misfortune. OWNER OF MOTOR VEHICLES Art. Hwy. Underwood (1914) Held Carabao caretaker was Art. if any. that possessor is liable even if the animal (1968) they could not be expected to exercise escapes or is lost (removed from control). 1905 (now 2183) did Based on this case. 2183. Yu Khe Tai) Afialda v. either civilly was not responsible for him under the or criminally. if the former. A. they are torts (otherwise redundant because each case would fall under is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent. i. the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. IAC (1989) Held facts and circumstances of the case. Would they? who has suffered damage. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle. 2183 trying to board a streetcar. the owner is solidarily liable with his driver. Vestil v. The only persons who can testify as to cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person this would be the owner himself/ his driver/ other passengers. PERSONS SPECIFICALLY LIABLE . • Car owners are not held to a uniform standard of diligence as professional drivers. upon it. driver and the owner. animals but covers tame ones as well. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for • It may be extremely difficult to prove that the owner who was in the car the damage which it may cause. the Underwood's driver took a sudden right If the act is sudden. and that the dog was The law does not speak only of vicious slowing down or stopping. Court must look at diligence required of personal circumstances of healthy car owner who is the owner in each case. Yu Khe Tai Held Casis Critiques argue that the dog was not theirs. also a capable driver. Yu Khe Tai) • User's responsibility arises from the fact that he benefits from the animal. There was no e. This responsibility shall could have prevented the mishap.

The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building. within the QC v. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from injuries suffered by. Canonoy. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused: (ExSTreEm) Held Casis Critiques (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due diligence. which may be harmful to persons or property. and other public works under their control or supervision. 2189 applies in particular Art. TC exercised through the City control and supervision without precautions suitable to the place. found City liable but CA Engineer. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result of any defect Court pointed out that it to the failure of an officer negligent is irrelevant. constructed and fractured her leg. sewers or deposits of infectious matter. Dad sought indemnity for injury. The Charter lays . reversed because it was a provision holding the city works. to the car. He just wanted bagoong. hotel room). would be safely covered. it may not cover situations where family rents/ leases on a short- them solidarily liable. Court held provision on defective structures. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof. canals. If the engineer or architect earth along Matahimik St. Jimenez v. in a letter to the Sec. defenses of due diligence and force majeure are absent • Except #1. PROPRIETORS OF BUILDINGS Art. Although defects for damage to property may imply negligence. 2189. Dacara (2005) Held Casis Critiques same period. does not imply waiver of any of the cause of action son's injuries and damage In determining the award . the same should public works. negligence not required and due diligence not a defense. Acceptance of the building. the fact of control and Art. HEAD OF A FAMILY FOR THINGS THROWN OR FALLING Jimenez stepped on a rusty 4"nail and proximate cause of the injury. if any. liable. supervision was admitted by the Mayor damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. negligence not required to be proven. had to be hospitalized for 20 days for Despite MOC. openings. 2190. CITIES. 2191 appears to contemplate a strict liability tort. manhole on the sidewalk the City Charter and LGU is the fact that it has (4) By emanations from tubes. the Court cause implies that Art. administrator of the market. AND MUNICIPALITIES D. 2193. Operating Contract and the Revised The Charter gives general rules on the o Would a head of a family be liable if their roof was torn off by a Charter of Manila.g. Provinces. 2189 is a quasi-delict delict. not required that the disrepair result from negligence • Strict liability tort. If that is the case. or due to the defects in the ground. he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor. Dagupan Art. He sued QC and of damages. 1723. collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications. • Force majeure also not a defense. Ana Market was flooded ankle-deep. after completion. the (2) By excessive smoke.Court implied that a furnished by him. public buildings. the third person suffering damages may proceed was not necessary for the to enforce its provisions only against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article. The city • Strict liability tort. 2190-91 hold liable those who benefit from the building/ structure. streets. if not caused by force majeure. Either down general rules for the E. PROVINCES.Like Cinco v. 2192. was the prox cause of the finding of negligence is supervises the construction. not liable for damages due then W/N the LGU was Art. in the construction mentioned in Article 1723. of Finance. its total or partial collapse. province/city/municipality the City. applied rules on quasi. Jimenez had the right to assume that the term basis (e. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a building is to liability from defective liable for damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure. 2189 is a particular • Article suggests that it covers places of residence of a long-term nature. on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality Minor drove into a pile of Negligence of QC gov't . Art. or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. City claims that under the Management & even hired a Market Master to supervise. within the road to belong to the cannot be used to exempt period therein fixed. while Art. Boarding a tricycle. It pointed to the private its officer. • Strict liability tort. pain. Guilatco v. Thus. national road. 2191. 2189. C. The Charter over the defective public • Arts. The contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice falls. a lady Control/supervision of the Based on this case. Negligence of Manila City was the F. . accidentally fell into a road was provided for in basis of the liability of the (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes. and the (1989) inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place. ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT OF COLLAPSED BUILDING control/supervision can City's liability while Art. the existence of such conditions despite due diligence would still trigger the application of the provisions. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. any person by reason of the defective condition of roads. the City Engineer. necessary in Art. this can be basis to sue • Strict liability tort.   28 .This plus finding of prox by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph. bridges. is responsible for high fever. make liability attach. or Art. City of Manila (1987) Held Sta. it could not be held liability of the City for the negligence of typhoon and caused injury to someone? Yes.

Days not get the film for about 6 filed against another who § Contributory negligence. His "industrialist". 1711. before delivery.No malice (only wanted prevent a wrongful to prove the wrongful to make a profit). They contemplate of cross-complaint. It took some time for employers in Art 1711. also the proper remedy to no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers.Did not know Gilchrist the Court in succeeding employer did not exercise due diligence in was the other party. 2187. The Common Law Doctrine as the result of the nature of the employment. (apparatus known as the declared to have died of asphyxia. issued.g. toilet articles and similar goods was granted as to Cuddy have an equal/ superior injunction. restraining E&Z based on culpa aquiliana one was lowered into the hole. provided that faced the immediate wrongful issuance of the no superior right by prospect of diminished injunction. G. protecting the public interest) • Defenses available: o If death/ injury is NOT caused by fellow worker: 2. 1314. The employer is also liable for compensation if the employee contracts any illness or disease caused by such employment or 1. Cuddy weeks. he from receiving and . Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay compensation for the Art.denied. he said Under the principle of ejusdem generis. mechanics or other employees. although but denied as to E&Z to right in themselves. They must justified in asking for Art. negligent interference is not actionable should be shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of • He acts with improper purpose the plaintiff's fellow worker. When the employee's lack of due care contributed to his death or injury. the interferes with plantiff's rights under a contract with another.. employee's lack of due care. or drunkenness Gilchrist v. injunction. employer is solidarily liable Zaldarriaga (E&Z) rented it Cuddy had contracted the seeking damages against § If due to intentional/ malicious act. etc. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for death of or injuries to their laborers. which interfered with. He was later used terms like "capital". give them an opportunity . Gilchrist mother sued the teacher under Art 1711. PERSONS WHO INTERFERE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS Art. When The teacher did not own any enterprise. He rented it to his agents saying he could an action for damages cause death/ injury. does not relieve them of contracts. . OWNERS OF ENTERPRISES/ OTHER EMPLOYERS I. the employer shall not be answerable. Under Philippine Jurisprudence § Mishap was due to employee's own notorious negligence. • Exception to exception: if it be shown that the the price.. By way existing contract. Injunction is shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used. Alarcon (1961) Held injunction which was action would have been interference". Liability will attach if: employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. emphasized that: he was not feeling well and slumped into did not fall under the category of other exhibiting the film. they . or drunkenness. even though the damages to the other contracting party. Code Commission moved to dissolve the interference with an somewhat novel him to be pulled out. thus he was H. event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause. or voluntary act. Cuddy (1915) Held Casis Critiques • This defense may not be available for illness/ Cuddy owned the film .Competition is not cinematograph). the employer shall not be liable for Tort liability may be imposed upon defendant if he intentionally and improperly compensation. Thus they must breached his contract. the latter and the costly/ less valuable. the victim. "management". causes plaintiff to lose a right under the contract or makes the contract rights more Art. If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow worker. Gilchrist contract/otherwise is profits. if the interference compensation shall be equitably reduced. A teacher hired men to dig a well. In Compensation shall be equitably reduced returned Gilchrist's money have known at the time fact.Mere right to compete In class. employer not liable for the same week at twice film to other parties. voluntary act. o Malice/ spite not required o May not be liable if he had an impersonal/ disinterested motive of • Requirement for illness/disease is stricter than for death/injury a laudable character (e. If the mishap was due to the employee's own notorious negligence. but this interference with • Products contemplated are manufactured/processed issuance. Gilchrist for a week. drinks. workmen. "Mishap" ordinarily refers to events that Zigomar. Nevertheless. 1712. If a fellow worker's intentional malicious • Defendant acts with knowledge that interference will result act is the only cause of the death or injury. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs. asked for damages for the interference. but cases has used this as selection/supervision of the fellow worker Gilchrist filed action for an identity is not a condition basis for the rules on ex parte mandatory precedent to liability bec actions referred to as "tort Alarcon v.E received a letter from This case did not involve injury. • Provides remedy to consumer regardless of how he came into possession legal liability   29 . E&Z could not justify Court said the case was a sitting position. if the death or personal injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. those engaged in business/ industry. MANUFACTURERS/ PRODUCERS OF PRODUCTS moved to dismiss. it was the alleged o When death/ injury caused by fellow worker: because Espejo and they made their offer that interferers who were § If due to negligence. unless it o Basis for liability is intent.

Cordero (2010) Held Casis Critiques A partnership entered into The elements of tort Robinson appointed 1st and 2nd elements are Court clearly had to go to 1yr lease agreements with interference are: Cordero as exclusive present. relieve interferer from because TC did not award posted a Patalastas economic reasons (to legal liability (injunction). Cuddy: • Casis question: What is an example of an equal or superior right that will A person is not a malicious interferer if justify interfering with a contract? (1) Valid contract? Yes! his conduct is impelled by a proper . to him. Economic interest was directly with Robinson. It sublessees for purely issued against him). commission. When the former there was no malice in the is not required for liability. Lessor sent rather than wrongful an equal/ superior right. In fact. absent any proof of improper refused to pay rentals to motive. it's difficult/impossible to awarded because bldgs on land he leased tortious interference. Even the Registry of interferer liable for damages as long as Property had no record. any (see above). Lapuz's losses. justification/excuse Eventually. grandson occupied the and the impulse lies in a also not a defense. transgressed the al. Court applied the elements and principles in So Ping Bun v. a party cannot be the ruling of So Ping Bun. partnership got his lawyers for the sale of bounds of permissible another basis for the the partnership continued person is without legal dissolved already.Notarized copy of lease business interest. requested . which the corporation did a malicious interferer. Court interpreted Gilchrist This is inaccurate. the great lengths to justify the a warehouse owner to (1) Valid contract existing Was there a valid contract distributor of AFFA ferries. 1st and 2nd elements are also purely economic yet Corporation filed suits for damage. violating Lapuz's leasehold rights. Partnership was dissolved discovered that Go et al. When he died. stating its willingness to ensure payment of work out an amicable rentals). it had a right to Lagon v. his son Ramon collected present but 3rd element is he was still considered a injunction. CA (1999) Held Casis Critiques Go v.Econ. As they continued to deal managing partner died. . there is no malice/bad faith. economic interest defense argument that there was store its textiles. the SEACAT 25.   30 . HDSJ entered into tort interferer (hence nullification of the leases. (3) Interference? No. Gilchrist. interests. As to the 3rd. award of damages despite their "cut" from the latter's notices of increased rent motives.Examination of title bore no indication necessarily make a person an officious of leasehold interest. entitled. the Court added parties did not renew but (3) Interference of the 3rd Moreover. Cordero benefit themselves at the it as a violation of Art. the person of such contract lease agreements expired? negotiations with Go and Go et al. financial/ profit motivation will not . HDSJ informed lacking. 19. because citing Gilchrist. as Inocencio v. . damages not Inocencio subleased 2 HDSJ did not commit But in So Ping Bun. Only Court went to great they continued to demand warehouse for his own proper business interest defense in Gilchrist was lengths to justify the and receive from Cordero business. not quantifiable.TC awarded no damages Inaccurate again. So Ping Bun v. Ramon. In Held Casis Critiques San Jose (2013) formal contracts of lease. Grandson. Hospicio de occupant.Lack of malice precludes In this case. directly with Robinsons. heirs of Bai Tonina Sepi to sell property advancement of his financial/economic which some sublessees No proof of spite/ill will. When the (2) Knowledge of the 3rd in this case? Hadn't the Cordero began cannot apply because malice on the part of Go et contracts expired. grandson's interest was determine the extent of claimants (E&Z) were not from HDSJ. after termination of the lease. his interference of a contract.Lagon did not induce (persuade/ Because not all elements are present. In other words. asking for the rentals. CA: Quoting Gilchrist v. intimidate) the heirs. interest defense: were already dealing furtively went to Robinson formed a corporation. damages Ramon that the leases agreements with the injunction was properly damages but does not were not awarded would not be renewed. distributorship. a (2) Knowledge of alleged interferer? No. they sold the lots Lagon cannot be made to answer for completely of their own volition. the which the lessor granted. in after Cordero worked hard as holding that where Gilchrist ruled that malice violation of his exclusive to close the deal for them. expense of Cordero. financial interest to liability by characterizing to occupy the premises. CA (2005) Held settlement directly with collect the rentals upon Lapuz accused Lagon of inducing the Lagon's purchase was merely an the sublessees. not reply to. They but its original members .

CA) Case of the law student Educational institutions It was not an abuse of • Not simply bad judgment or negligence. a TRO was filed or extinguished pursuant to a court • It must be implemented by Art. 19 is a mere declaration of with the SC. Arts. Baltao I filed a case for malicious prosecution against Albenson based on Art 19. a Notice to Vacate and issued for right. 20 and 21. the legitimate exercise of a person’s rights. They were given a check but was their failure to collect the P2k due of mind. Every person must. 19 in Pantaleon was taking too long with his conduct of all persons. Art. whether artificial was charged for Estafa. 3) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another UE v. illegal acts on the part of respondent. and observe honesty and good faith. Damnum 1) A legal right or duty. damages was filed against Amonoy. Albenson filed a case 3 element. He blames American Express or natural. office. who was "incomplete” in 1 are duty-bound to inform right on the part of UE. School bad faith here. 19 sets the standards for the was told to get a lie detector test and right to recover damages under Art. Art. the abusive manner in California Clothing v. to a legal wrong. Tobias right to dismiss Tobias. and the demand letter sent to the they not only informed but imputed Albenson v. Quiñones (2013) Held Tobias was dismissed due to how they exercised their right amounted Case of the unpaid jeans at Robinsons They went overboard in sending a dishonesty. When Tobias tried applying this case. who now has the Case of the cancelled tour because Art. 19 and causes loss to another. act with justice. UE’s defense was Jader’s own Globe Mackay v. By the time SC issued the order. Abuse of Rights was a Baltao III. though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such. just after he had already should have practiced negligence. Tobias was called a swindler and a crook Globe Mackay liable because they failed by his employer. does not automatically result in an actionable Jader sued UE for 20 of the Civil Code. No • Through some motive or intent of ill will. Although acts of the petitioner principle. or when the exercise is suspended • It precludes the defense of damnum absque injuria demolition. Damnum absque injuria graduated and started principle of good dealings 1) Under this principle. a valid exercise of a right. However. nd VIII. because even with the right to elsewhere. Albenson found that on a bounced check which they honestly individual concerned. delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Albenson to file a BP 22 against Baltao I 19 requires “good faith”. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of duties. which is a state Industries. CA (1989) Held negligence. However. damages. Baltao I was the President of believed was issued by him. Damnum absque injuria against Baltao I. HUMAN RELATIONS TORTS .   31 . 20 and 21. The application of purchases. TC issued when there is an abuse of a person’s may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. Amonoy v. No 2 and rd Guaranteed. A. Case of the 3 Baltaos. it partakes of the nature of fraud out about his failing grade academic status. because acted in good faith. The test yielded rel. but • Dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong subject and only found the students of their a performance of duty. Albenson No abuse of rights here. CA) : been demolished. invoked damnum absque injuria. AMEX not liable negative and the complaint was damnum absque injuria can’t apply in for the delays and sued for damages. the issuer of the check. CA (1993) Held accused’s employer. manifested by acts of the it was dishonored. enshrined in Art. to Art. Cebu. He absque injuria is a principle premised on 2) Exercised in bad faith. after he had reported to exercise in a legitimate manner their Pantaleon v. the Gutierrezes' house had abuse of right when he continued after Elements (according to Albenson v. the shouting in the Cebu Pac demand letter to respondent’s employer. dismissed. order setting aside the Writ of were initially justified. not knowing that there applies here. favor over lots under litigaton. Gutierrez (2001) Held Effects of Art 19 (Principle of Abuse of Rights): Amonoy obtained a judgment in his Damnum absque injuria does not apply • A right. A complaint for the issuance of the TRO. 21. even if it preparing for the Bar. Jader (2000) Held Casis Critiques “Bad faith” (according to Andrade v. injury. What prompted they sought to tarnish her reputation. give everyone his due. Globe wrote them stating dismiss Tobias. 19. American Express (2010) Held anomalies within the company. it amounted to Possession.

a. After the loan was released Furthermore. A robber can’t recover v. What was the difference? à The delay constituted bad faith in Jader. pictures of a fully-constructed house recovery of civil liability who facilitated the application of the bearing signatures of the Sps. Ex: An ordinance requires all apartment builings to be equipped with strong fire escape ladders. Jurisdiction 1) A breach of statutory duty. For a included in the documents was a bank is obliged to exercise the highest CASIS QUESTIONS: certificate of house completion and degree of diligence in all its transactions. requirements for the release of the loan. being the maker of the cert. for NHMFC had already released the loan their signature without affirming that the 2. parked his bicycle and did the alleged completion of the house. a cyclist. (Carpio) amortizations from the Sps. Comsavings v. The penalty is a fine of P50. while the delay in Pantaleon was Art 20: Breach of Statutory Duty: Intentional and Negligent Tort from Civil Law adequately justified by the bank. as benefit of an originator bank. shall indemnify the latter for the same. 20. what if it was proven that she really didn’t transplanted in our jurisdiction in Art. Requirements under Art 20 • Illegal Acts 1. on the basis of house had been completely constructed Memorial Circle for cyclists. A 3) Art. Does Art. Only to special criminal laws that don’t specially provide for construction contract with GCB Builders. CASIS QUESTIONS: 1) In both Jader and Pantaleon. the Carpio. Statute exempts those with civil liability. pay? 2) As it is worded.   32 . released the loan to BB falls under justified or exempting circumstances.) There must be an invasion of a particular interest the law seeks to protect another. sign the certificate despite the killed him. are owners of a residential lot. Sps. Celso. Every person who. it should have desisted from applies to all laws. starting was irregular because it wasn’t riding a bike at that moment? contravened the purpose of the à Sir didn’t give a categorical answer but was leaning toward yes. 20 apply Sps. 20. willfully or negligently causes damage to 2. that they would have Builders. This constituted gross negligence. an NHMC. The act of making the some stretching. the willful or negligent act causing damage must be à It shouldn’t change the liability if the action was based on abuse of right. As he was. construction started by GBB but serving as originator under the UHLP and producers sue for violations on the basis of Art. as a banking institution of movies. does Art. and turned over the pictures to to sign various documents as part of the NHMFC for reimbursement of the loan. executed a Comsavings to GBB was a submission of a. Can movie to GBB. contrary to law. This pre-signing was also fraudulent because it enabled them to gain P17k in the form of several deduction from the proceeds of the loan. sued GBB and Comsavings for construction of the house not yet even if the law was intended for the protection of cyclists and Celso breach of contract and damages. 20 should not apply to all violations of law. was 2) In the case of California Clothing. Comsavings pictures. Salvador) if he sustained injuries while using the defective ladder as a secret entrance. according to plan. Art. A tenant can recover if he sustains 1) Includes negligence – “a violation of a statutory duty is negligence. contrary to law. Capistrano (2013) Held Sps. certificate. house was still unfinished. there was delay by the defendants. The Sps. b. 20? it took way longer than promised. They GBB is liable for breach and ComSavings Rules governing Article 20 availed of a loan under a program is equally liable under Art. informed the Sps. Intentional Torts in Philippine Law professor in UE was held liable while AMEX wasn’t. 000. Comsavings accepted these unsigned “unlawful”.” (Garcia injuries while using the ladder during a fire. 20. otherwise. because presenting the certificate to the Sps. a car swerving into the bike lane hit and However. 20 cover this? In other words. especially if they have their implemented by the Nat’l Home requirement for the release of the loan by own civil indemnity Mortgage Finance Corp. Sps. Consider that a violation may not be “unlawful” if it accredited originator. of à YES. o The Anti-Camcording law punishes the unauthorized recording acceptance. The requirement for the violation of law here – it must be loan with Comsavings Bank. recognized in other jurisdictions as a tort. However.) QC passed an ordinance setting aside 5 lanes for bikes along QC proceeds to Comsavings. 20 NHMFC started demanding for acceptance.) Person must establish that he belongs to the class of persons sought to be protected by the statute Art.

a. Francisco left marry. • General practice by the great mass of social group and 2) lack of intent to fulfill the promise on the • Continued performance of these acts for a long period of time part of the defendant. good customs or public policy 4) Art.” A. He repudiated damages. pertains to usages pregnant. 2. Can Wendell be liable under Art. Beatriz sued for damages the preparations and last-minute and won. good customs or public policy. which. Moral Seduction 5) Code Commission on whether this article obliterate the line between morality and the law: “Every good law draws its breadth of life from Tanjanco v. contrary to good customs. to kill her. or public policy shall compensate the latter for supposed wedding in 2 days. This must refer to those enticement. plaintiff must when it is not a quasi- • Uniformity or identity of the acts or various solutions to the judicial their marriage agreement prove: 1) that the promise delict? question. not knowing Bea was engaged. Though no law was violated Carpio. became compulsory with respect to incentive to increase place or subject. 21 comes closest to prescribing moral norms as a legal standard of conduct. the 7) Element of Malice = Carpio believes the phrase “willfully causes loss or promise of marriage. good customs. 21. or public policy. “This just goes to show it’s hard to actually hard to apply Plaintiff required to prove: Wassmer in the future. According to jurisprudence. Baksh v. with a note saying he will return soon. succeeded in having regular with the idea of seduction. or various resolutions of a judicial question raised maltreated and threatened wrong. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is 1. customs which are not contrary to law. but there was no financial injury? What If the by any law. And it is done with intent to injure He never did. would be a perverse and by long unvarying habit. The manner by which the defendant carries out such intent Wassmer v. the ff. But which is contrary to morals. all set.) What if same facts as Wassmer. public order. public order or public policy. consideration of his conduct of repeated sex carnal knowledge. by common adoption & acquiescence and sue him for damages. repeatedly on life. 21. 21: The willful acts contrary to morals. which. 21 There was still st 6) Under this article. is required for an action under Art. 21. acts or omissions which are perfectly legitimate may still Apolonio’s pleas for sex. absconding. courted her. In General Art. frequency of b. there practices of people. she got initial deceit. Existence of intent B. notice was 3 months before? What if there was no public humiliation? à No answer from Sir. à NO. was the proximate cause. There is an act which is legal. considering c.) Wendell. To be able to claim application of Art. Art. Purpose: It is intended to prevent a situation where a person suffers damage or loss at the hands of another but has no legal remedy because the situation is not covered 2. ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES CASIS QUESTIONS: 1. it was palpably and unjustifiably b. shouldn’t ratify the 8) Concept of Morals and Good Customs sex with her. He over a year is incompatible succeeding trysts injury to another” requires malice or deceit. good customs or policy. 21? damages. Velez (1964) Held Elements: Beatriz and Francisco had their wedding It was not a mere breach of promise to a. and had to resign Otherwise. Intentional Torts in Philippine Law in abandoning a fiancée. Petitioner’s seduction on the 1 give rise to liability if they are contrary to morals. but 2 days prior. it was contrary to morals. good custom. CA (1966) Held Casis Critiques morals…” Araceli acceded to Action under Art. CA (1993) Held Casis Critiques c. causing her to ditch her contrary to morals. Customs are easier to objectify than morals. C. There is no malice in this situation. according to Carpio. requisites must be satisfied for After Baksh forced Marilou Breach of promise to marry Why did they require a custom to exist: to live with him. he per se is not an actionable proximate cause to • Plurality of acts. and married someone else. in unsuccessful. The Code qualifies the term with “good”. • General conviction that the practice corresponds to judicial necessity or that its obligatory   33 .

court may not presume that and Lolita’s family sued for damages. for robbery of jewelry. institution of legal proceedings for the purpose Rosemarie the housemaid was charged MP case will not prosper. She was were made with bad faith and malice. interrogated. Espino (1979) Held 4) Prosecution motivated by malice. wedding. she was suddenly accused for the sufficient evidence on record that Information was filed against Adaza for No MP. Valmonte (2004) Held in filing a suit means the absence of the Valmonte was a coordinator for a Carpio transgressed provisions of Art. 3 elements for MP suit to loss of P1M worth of jewelry that were Carpio’s imputations against Valmonete rebellion w/ Murder and Frustrated prosper: 1) Prosecution and acquittal. Adaza filed complaint for Prosecutor acted without probable bodily searched. but branded as a thief and the caused loss or injury to plaintiff in a stopped by Nicolas because of defects in deceived because the checks couldn’t guards embarrassed him in front of a manner that was contrary to morals. 21. She was four elements missing – there is no Coconut Planters) maltreated for an extrajudicial showing that the prosecutor acted without • “An action for damages against whom a criminal prosecution. Junsay (2007) Held abuse of judicial processes. case against Nicolas. cause. the delivered goods. 29. the name and reputation of the plaintiffs § “such action only requires a preponderance of evidence” Alfonso frequented Lolita’s house (parents. The favor of the defendant therein” (more often used definition. Case was not terminated because of discharge on bail. 21. vexing. no showing of acting without probable cause because of honest belief that 4. and trailed The verbal reproach was uncalled forl damages. rights. CA (1997) Held Hotel. No MP when Que filed the estafa case. 3. charging malicious prosecution. Que filed an Estafa be encashed. 2) placed in the comfort room. payments to Que were He had reason to believe he had been called. courted The illicit affair caused great damage to o Arts 19. but was to probable cause (the fact that it was cause. 32. He was not motivated by crowd and threatened to call police. a married man. Pe (1962) Held awarded Alfonso Pe. the attack was not merely inquisitive but because of the non-existent crime. Two out of the of harassing. annoying.” They subsequently eloped and proof. The false accusation + Que and Nicolas were business partners. 2) Termination of prosecution in acquittal 3) Absence of probable cause Grand Union v. that is improper or sinister motive Case of the Engineer who put a “rat tail” Court considered totality of facts and file in is shirt pocket but forgot to pay for circumstances + personal circumstances Que v. prosecution. civil suit or confession. or injuring an innocent person (Villanueva v. The presence of probable cause Carpio v. 20. 19 legal malice element. alleged herein. 33. Public Humiliation • Statutory Basis o Art 2219 (8) – MP is one case where moral damages may be Pe v. malice. to pay for it when his attention was threats + cause of humiliation willfully For 1 transaction. 21 for the 1) Prosecution of the plaintiff by defendant betrayal of trust and shame on family. brothers and sisters). 2217. Her car was also searched. after termination of such prosecution.   34 . Malicious Prosecution crime existed. 35. prosecutor was not impelled by legal Junsay) malice because the mere act of o Includes: disbarment proceedings submitting a case to authorities for • Gravamen of MP– deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that prosecution doesn’t make one the charges were false and groundless. Rosemarie sought damages probable cause. Not a o 2176 CANNOT be a statutory basis because it is impossible to because “he wanted her to him the case of seduction because in absence of commit this negligently rosary. suit or other proceeding in actually seeking damages for malicious inadmissible is evidentiary matter). 26. Under Philippine Law • Malicious prosecution as denuncia falsa – persecution through misuse or Magbanua v. good customs and public policy. Murder. 2219(8) Lolita. IAC (1989) Held it on the way out of the grocery. her admission gave rise other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable for violations and maltreatment. While at the suit in Manila in relation to Art. None of these accusatory. All 3 must concur. Nicolas filed a ill feeling but mere desire to protect his malicious prosecution case against Que. 3) Prosecutor impelled by legal by security. He tried of the accused. defendant deliberately induced the ELEMENTS (DAAM) relationship. petitioners had well- founded belief to filed the case. not the filing of a complaint based immediately liable. They were collateral relatives. Court found Drilon v. Magbanua v. the stat doesn’t put on wrong provision impose a penalty on right to litigate. Use of Art.

Oppressive Dismissal reputation and good name unimpaired by false attacks which tend to diminish the esteem in which a person is Quisaba v. auditor. shall produce a cause of action for damages. under Art. encroachment on one’s personal privacy is included. or violation of privacy (because the calling card note was not meant to be public) Carpio. harmful or offensive contact or apprehension o Thus. Art. was married). Every person shall respect the dignity.” which prohibits acts of oppression by • Malice Requirement: either capital or labor against the other. posted a photo on Instagram with police constitute a criminal offense. Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs. a model. 26: for damages if he willfully causes loss or § Generally: not essential. Sta. through they may not o Alyzza. o Right to social intercourse o Right to privacy 3) The Right to Social Relations o Right to peace of mind • No parallel in American law • Liability for intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends 1) The Right to Personal Dignity • Malice requirement: “Intrigue” implies malice or ill will • Violation of the right to personal dignity is analogous to the American law concept of defamation. place of birth. VIOLATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY o Does peeking into someone’s bag for magic notes constitute an action under Art. violation today. personality. Ines on the ground of his refusal to dismissal was done anti-socially or matter by written or printed words. injury to another in a manner contrary to § Exception: Malice or ill will remains important morals. and her post caption was “Thanks Hon. it is an assault to shake. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another. 26? Art 26. where there exercise of a qualified privilege is in question. Intentional Torts in Philippine Law 2) The Right to Personal Security • “Although up to the present it has remained sorely neglected. perhaps • Such action is identical with: battery and assault – unlawful touching or one of the most fertile sources of tort action in the Civil Code is Art. saved me from traffic C. Prying into the privacy of another’s residence. or to chase him in a belligerent manner” o Right to personal dignity • Defendant must have intended to interfere with the plaintiff’s personal o Right to personal security dignity o Right to family relations o Assault can’t be committed through negligence.   35 . o As a crime: Malice is required and Art. under Carpio’s 6 rights his neighbors and other persons. or public policy. purchase logs because it was oppressively. prevention officer’s calling card with the note “Please assist my EA Alyzza” and other relief: B. exemplary damages because he was because of the MANNER of dismissal o The reputation protected is the opinion of others temporarily relieved as internal auditor of and the consequent effects. § Slander – all other defamation “inconsistent with his work as internal then the respondents violated Art 1701 • Both libel and slander are crimes in the Philippines. 21. If the § Libel consists of the publication of defamatory Sta. privacy and peace of mind of à YES. • The following principal rights are covered by the protective mantle of • “Thus. CASIS QUESTIONS: D. merely illustrative. one’s fist under this provision: another’s nose. good customs. as distinguished from the contact itself. o Defamation: an invasion of a person’s right to enjoy a 5. The following and similar acts. lowly à YES. or alienation of family relations (if he station in life. Ines (1974) Held held by men whose standard of opinion the court can Quisaba filed a complaint for moral and This is a case of oppressive dismissal properly recognize. or other personal condition. contact with the person. 26. physical defect. in a threatening manner.” Can the police officer file an action against her D. 26? E. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends. 26(1) is not limited to invasion of the privacy of • Interest protected: Freedom from apprehension of a harmful or offensive residence.” striking of the person of another done with intention of bringing about a • ART 26’s enumeration is not exclusive. It can be either defamation. which makes a person liable o As an action Art. as the complaint alleges.

Interferences by Third Persons • RE: public figure – even those who unwillingly court public attention. No defense that husband was food. Aramil’s. Held (2011) § The attempt to alienate must be successful to be Case where Makati Shang Court cited the essence of Art. i.) Right to Peace of Mind o Adultery – husband may maintain an action against the 2rd • Parallel to American tort of intentional infliction of mental distress party. His f. The law expressly recognizes the right of either spouse to sue • Invasion of the right of privacy involves 4 distinct types of tort: the other without any limitations as to the subject matter of 5) Intrusion upon the plaintiff’s physical and mental solitude litigation. • The right to family relations includes the right to consortium and to through association with crime or other interesting events. use of plaintiff’s name in the title of a ii. Wife may recover even if husband did not mishandled their wedding – wrong every person is entitled to respect of desert the family home. in Manila Times for the publicity of St. personality. 6) Public disclosure of private facts b. 26. Tenchavez v. 26. Carpio believes that a personal tort action. Enticement o Under Art. as long as there was encouragement on the peace of mind – to justify award of other woman’s part. CA (1984) Held parents enjoy a qualified privilege to interest themselves in the Dr. Husband and wife • “The right to be let alone. the 3 party. 26 – actionable. etc. nominal damages. acted for the purpose of affecting the relation. Family relations include those between ascendants and descendants. Consortium – bundle of legal rights namely: services. like an action for assault or publication. conjugal affection advertisement in a newspaper. The gist of a husband’s cause of action for loss of his corporation. become recover damages for breach thereof. • Examples of forms of interferences 6.) The Right of Privacy d. Aramil’s house was twice published There was a violation of Aramil’s marital affairs of their child. No rectification because no o Parents must also be allowed to institute a personal tort action apologies even after they had stopped against the child under Art. his dignity. reluctant public figures. peeping into plaintiff’s windows the damage sustained by her. the parent. or vise versa. o Can a meddling-mother-in-law be liable for alienation of affection? NO. falsely depicting his house private life was unnecessarily and o Nowhere in our law is there a prohibition against a child suing as the Arcadio Family’s. privacy and seducer. can be 7) Placing the plaintiff in false light in the public eye maintained by a wife against her husband. etc. lacked wine. Carpio believes a child has the right to sue a parent had to scrimp up to be able to afford it.   36 . for excessive punishment. What if the subdivision had houses that all looked the same anyway? o Can a child sue his mother’s paramour for enticing her to leave à The result would still be the same if you can show the house was identifiable as the conjugal home? Carpio believes YES. the child can sue on Dr. Escaño adopted the view that St. Louis v. Child also has a right to an undisturbed family right. Parent and Child Louis Realty. Makati Shangri-la causing the alienation. a parent may institute a tort action against a CASIS QUESTION: person who entices a child away from home. whether or not the wife consented to it (referring to physical illness suffered by plaintiff as a result of offensive o Alienation of affection – Required to prove that: (1) The words or acts) rd defendant. and (2) The defendant was a substantial factor in Sps.) The Right to Family Relations 5. g. • Examples in American Jurisprudence: use of plaintiff’s picture for an society. battery. sexual intercourse. 8) Commercial appropriation of the plaintiff’s name or likeness e. unauthorized prying into the plaintiff’s private bank wife’s consortium is a loss sustained by him and not account. right to privacy under Art. the basis of interference of family relations. 26. Guanio v. and how they mistakenly exposed.4.” a. like battery.

contrary to law cameras facing petitioner’s property.Generally: “Directly or indirectly” à not actor alone who must answer for damages Exception: If the defendant is a judge. the individual 13) The right to take part in a peacable assembly to petition the Government for without their consent. Gregorio was arrested by armed men in Article 26 grants a cause of action for her QC residence. were constructing a fence that was Expectation of Privacy Test is used to 11) The privacy of communication and correspondence destroying the wall of its building. constructing an auto-repair of another’s residence” includes unreasonable searches and seizures shop. by his conduct. 26 (1) – “Prying into the privacy 8) The right to equal protection of the laws 9) The right to be secured in one’s person. without to make such confession. or from being employee refuses or neglects. and effects against & Resources. 2) Freedom of speech personality. 16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. without just cause. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or 17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one’s self. or any private individual. Choachuy (2013) Held 7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use Respondent owners of Aldo Development Art. or cruel and unusual punishment. machination or any other unjust. Unfair competition in agricultural. 26. 32. redress of grievances and (2) this expectation is one that 14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form 15) The right of the accused against excessive bail society recognizes as reasonable. the Court said was later dismissed upon motion incalculable damages has been because of insufficiency of evidence inflicted on the plaintiff on account of Art. to have a speedy and public trial. violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights were not even hers. intimidation. forced to confess guilt. CA (2009) Held IX. papers. and 19) Freedom of access to courts labor thru the use of force. A. The Reasonable 10) The liberty of abode and changing the same Hing. or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter. except when the person confessing becomes a State prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS was fingerprinted and mugshot. callous. The case Citing Art. prevention and other relief and children. the signatures on the checks the defendant’s wanton. oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage. INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS . witness 18) Freedom from excessive fines. 1. business office also. commercial or industrial enterprises or in declared unconstitutional. exhibited an expectation of privacy. Any public officer or employee. The SC granted her fundamental legal precept that “Every 1) Freedom of religion petition. and to have compulsory process to secure the • Dereliction of Duty attendance of witness in his behalf Art 27. to perform his official duty. person shall respect the dignity. Gregorio v. claimed that the adjacent lot. to meet the witnesses face to face. unless the same • Unfair Competition is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially Art 28. and obstructs. in front of her husband damages. Persons Responsible . for allegedly violating BP for cases not necessarily constituting 22. deceit. Sps. who directly or indirectly against her. They determine whether there is a violation 12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not installed on their building 2 surveillance of the right to privacy: (1) Whether. defeats.” 5) Freedom of suffrage 6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law Sps. responsibility is not demandable unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. She filed an action reckless disregard of the and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: for damages. Hing v. She was taken to the DILG office and a criminal offense – the 6 rights. privacy and peace of 3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain periodical publication mind of his neighbors and other 4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention persons.   37 .Public officers or public individuals . house.

3. (MVRS v. The SC police to seize without warrant seizure. after RA under Art. To require malice Marijuana was allegedly found in the Waiver by implication can’t be presumed. was dismissed and MHP was ordered to return the goods. and MHP’s injury. Very few public Champion. than the good faith Da’wah) defense.Chato v. Act. of existence of such right. 1) Duty owing to the officers nor types of entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. The problem was how. in either (otherwise. or partially in first determining which 2) Duty owing to the of the 2 classes of duties 1. Court held the search to constructive. After not giving or bad faith will not amount to failure of officers for violation of Dangerous Drugs constitute a waiver thereof. of the plaintiff. VC liable. Malice or Bad Faith that such right must be listed in Art. but they only returned the “inferior quality” ones. or tend to have. AND 2. A There must be clear and convincing cigarettes bearing foreign brand”. Fortune (2007) Held offense. is also liable for allegation of bad faith was competition charge against Gonzales apparently assenting thereto. exercised by public officers: distinguish types of Art.   38 .NECESSARY that there is a violation of the constitutional right of the plaintiff. Larry de Guzman. merely held that in this official Boy Scout uniforms. she claims that no showing the premises. Vinzons. Held Casis Critiques B. be illegal. It is required due notice. subject to justifiable motives of good faith in the performance of their duties) . -­‐ It is the publication of anything which is injurious to the good name or – in his official reputation of another or tends to bring him in disrepute. whether or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a criminal Vinzons-Chato v. Soluta (2006) Held brands” (subject to 20-45% tax). This civil action will proceed independently and be proved by a VC was the Commissioner of Internal Malice need not be proven in an action preponderance of evidence. 32. under a The “liability depending invasion of a relational interest since it involves the opinion which others in particular on duty” is even worse the community may have. In response to the suits office without a warrant and searched involved had knowledge. failure to allege malice complaint was filed against the union evidence of an actual intention to to 55% ad valorem tax. fraud. malice or gross negligence . instigated a raid with the help of the right agsainst unreasonable search and “particular injury”. Petitioners barged into and the that: 1) the right exists. She There are 2 kinds of duties Art. The unfair who stood by the raid. or a particular right. MHP indirectly involved in transgressing the complaint is not a substantiate their claim. of bad faith. Islamic obligation. and physical injuries. CA (1994) Held action against a public NOT REQUIRED” is not MHP Garments was awarded an MHP was liable even if it was the police officer without a particular reversed though. public collectively duties of public officers. 33. needed for suit to prosper. 32 . they exclusive franchise to sell and distribute who conducted the raid. MHP Garments v. either actual or against her.NOT NECESSARY. 2) the person around P9M. an employee impliedly ruled that Gonzales’ premises. FRAUD. 32 does not was acquitted.Aggrieved has a right to proceed on an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages. she rights of citizens. Nature of Acts Covered . Revenue. -­‐ Words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per General Rule: An individual se. the fact that language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it cannot have a particular The rule that “MALICE actionable by itself. In cases of defamation. and shall require – whether wholly Court had no legal basis only a preponderance of evidence. Hope and More as “local officials would openly abuse individual Silahis v. Upon participation was only to report the “Financial and business case an allegation of bad receiving info that Gonzales was selling alleged illegal activity. PHYSICAL INJURIES Fortune (2008) VC moved for recon. she demanded collection of state of a cause of action. a civil action for damages. may be brought by the injured party. precisely because torts 7654 already considered the brands don’t require malice. and 3) the person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. DEFAMATION. MHP was difficulties” in Fortune’s faith was essential to the same without authority. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. subject article. Defamation public individuals is involved. reclassified as “locally manufactured would be to limit the scope of this office of the Silahis Employee’s union. Defamation is an capacity.

Elvin Chan (2011) Held the pig as the god of Muslims. it -­‐ RPC: A public and malicious imputation of a crime. status or circumstance immoral business practices. Three years later. explained or strengthened or Yuchengco neither public officer nor Attempted Rape. but also when it is made known or made to another in the performance of brought to the attention or notice of another person other than its legal. prohibited and punished under BP 22. discredit. there is a presumption of malice in a defamatory imputation Elements of Libel (A PIE) when there is no showing of good faith. Court ruled that the failure to present evidence showing that they verified the truth of any of the subject articles was MVRS Publications Inc. or so P336. Whether or not public figure. it can be instituted as a purely civil said it does not necessarily have to be action under Art 33. in articles under Art 33. articles are not qualified Morales was not liable for libel. or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Yuchengco v.   39 . communications: -­‐ Publication of the imputation 1. “Marcos crony” of unsound and can be instituted as a purely civil action real or imaginary. it is libelous. civil action for recover the civil liability arising from the sweeping or all-embracing to apply to the collection of the principal amount of issuance of an unfunded check every individual in the group. Manila Chronicle) proven. or any act. v. Court held that restricted by the context. Phil Journalists (1988) Held actionable if actual malice – Morales. Fair commentaries on matters of public -­‐ Existence of malice interest -­‐ Need: Public figure (libel suit Arafiles v. without comment. -­‐ Identity of the person defamed. Court prohibits reservation of a separate civil action to claim civil liability arising from issuance of the bouncing check. Heirs of Simon v. For the existence of malice. In the PH. Manila Chronicle (2009) Held Libel Yuchengco was imputed twice as a Although “libel” is defined in the RPC.000 was commenced. explain. Held (2003) Islamic Da’wah filed a complaint for libel Suit will not prosper as class suit without 2. moral. Court -­‐ Although “libel” is defined in the RPC. the article must be construed as whether the contents of the filed with the police district an entirety including the headlines. Fair and true report. omission. and 3. Islamic fatal to their cause. privileged communications even if they spirit and motive of the publication taken dealt with matters of public concern. -­‐ Allegation or imputation of a discreditable act or condition concerning except in qualifiedly privileged another. Fraud against MVRS publications for an article circumstances specifically alluding to a -­‐ estafa falls under fraud in Art.because with Rape and Forcible Abduction with be enlarged. (Yuchengco v.proven) rd headquarters for Forcible Abduction they may enlarge. as publication were false . social duty. or of a vice or defect.Private communication by a person o not only when widely circulated. a reporter of People’s Journal The allegation of the “overly knowledge of publication’s Tonight published a story “GOVT EXEC sensationalized reporting” does not falsity or reckless disregard for RAPES COED” based on a complaint stand. condition. Requirement for defamation against a Case for BP 22 was filed against Eduardo There is no independent civil action to group is that the statement must be so Simon. with varying views on the matter. specific that each member can prove the The issuance of a bouncing check may defamatory statement specifically result in 2 separate and distinct crimes: pointed to him. adopted in purely civil action for damages person. 33 in Bulgar containing a statement about particular member of a class. But recovery for civil members of Muslim community each liabilities are distinct. While a party may have separate and distinct reputation opt to reserve civil action for estafa. (A PIE). author and the offended party 2. or restrict or Applying the 3 type . The in entirety. depends upon the scope. or contempt of a natural or juridical published by the Manila Chronicle. Court noted that estafa and BP22. The elements of libel were tending to cause the dishonor.

heir sued doctor homicide. whereas the defendant in Corpus v. Paje it was held of their decedent. Paje (1969) Held Casis Critiques case). resulting in his the same criminal Capistrano. mother. While attempted. 31 and Art. Therefore. 33 where the crime is the criminal action for homicide thru Heirs of lawyer filed action for damages result of criminal negligence. a civil case for causing death… so the civil action for damages was filed by the Intestate damages could have been commenced Dulay v. Pepsi Cola (1965) Held when he was hit by a truck. finding (criminal negligence saying he acted as a mere agent of his fraud committed by Consing and his reckess imprudence didn’t resulting in homicide). Consing The Civil Case for Damages and civil action for damages. damages of the heirs. Heirs of Bonite filed a criminal is based on reasonable doubt – civil by Capuno. Casis emphasized the imprudence. Pepsi) -­‐ It does not cover acts committed via negligence Bonite v. filed under Art. by Marcia. an information for charged with homicide. People (2013) Held Imprudence was filed damages. no independent filed for recovery of money and damages not operate as a prejudicial question that civil action for damages in with application for writ of preliminary will justify the suspension of the criminal connection with reckless attachment. it must be reckless imprudence. An information was acquitted in the shouldn’t include death for Homicide and double criminal action. which is not included in rd complaint of Estada thru Falsification of to a 3 party is an independent civil the 3 crimes under Art. 33. who thinks death and physical negligence of which Paje physicial injuries injuries. and the same would altercation at the Big Bang sa Alabang that no independent civil action may be not have been stayed by the filing of the carnival. Heir of patient reserved right Art. Corpus was charged with reckless Collision between Victory Civil action dismissed. Unicapital initiated criminal mother in selling the mortgaged property exist. During noted the accused in the case at bar is dismissed bec. Caro (1983) Held Consing. prescribed) pendency of case. Even if to personally demand Consing had various loans from There is no prejudicial question when the against bus driver. He was be instituted and requires only a Imprudence. appendix. public document at Makati RTC. frustrated and consummated criminal case pending. Zosa (1988) Held Bonite was working as a “caminero” Civil liability is not extinguished by Capuno v. (altho case against guard and his employers. 33. -­‐ Includes physical injuries causing death (Capuno v. the because the reason for Serious Physical Injuries acquittal thus constituted the law was to give   40 . As such. pursuant to Art. for estafa thru falsification of public docs with Makati RTC. it will Therefore. The prosecutor filed an info case at bar. the civil action. case was pending. 33. Unicapital civil action and criminal action can of Marcia reserved their includes homicide. through Reckless a bar to the civil action for injured party the initiative Consing v. Upon motion by Madeja v. Makati RTC suspended Doctor was accused of Homicide thru Court ruled that civil action against proceedings on ground of existence of Reckless Imprudence for the death of doctor may proceed independently of the prejudicial question (with the injunctive patient after an surgery for removal of criminal action because covered under relief daw). not meant for later learned that the mortgaged proceed independently of each other. property had spurious TCTs. Imprudence against driver. While the crim injuries” in Art 33 includes bodily injuries beyond reasonable doubt. in this case. Physical Injuries for damages. lawyer was shot and killed. a Liner bus and jeep driven Since it was based upon footnote of Justice civil action based on Article 33 lies. Heirs “physical injuries” damages by independent Unicapital totaling P18M. not with reckless Homicide was filed (aka nauna yung civ imprudence. Truck driver was charged as entirely independent of the criminal complaint for Homicdie thru Reckless action for the same act or omission may triple Homicide thru Reckless action. then action under Article 33. CA (1995) Held Estate of the Buan spouses by Capuno immediately upon the death Security guard and lawyer had an Although in Corpus v. imprudence. (this was 3. which included claims for Court explained the term “physical acquitted for failure to prove guilt preponderance of evidence. “Physical injuries” covers to file separate civil action. right to institute separate charge to the bus driver his lawyer to institute. was reckless imprudence filed for injunctive relief at Pasig RTC. Attachment on account of the alleged Paje acquitted. resulting in acquittal of the accused where acquittal Pepsi Cola truck collided with car driven Heirs of Capuno correctly considered it his death.

the award of damages was WRONG if based solely on losses from unrealized rentals from the tenants who left bec. THE CONCEPT OF DAMAGES . The grant of easement of right of way against law affords no remedy for damages that neighbor. and steal their stuff. CATCH-ALL INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION A. for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law. C. both a right of action for a legal wrong justifying it with the inconveniences of inflicted by the defendant. B. the • ONLY WITH MONEY court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action. or harm which results from the injury o Damages – the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered • Basis: breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach Custodio v. and damage having drunk people pass by their house resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. there must be his adobe fence and its extension. Ballesteros) but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed. or satisfaction for an injury sustained or “he pecuniary consequences which the law Art. When Allowed • There must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by If during the pendency of the civil action. recover damages. I. injuria is not a cause of action. the same. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings. To warrant the One neighbor blocked 1 passageway with recovery of damages. 34. 35. he had 2 possible losses does not give rise to a right to passageways to access the main street. charges another with imposes for the breach of some duty or violation of some right. D. Lower courts granted resulting from an act with does not permanent access + damages. NEGLECT OF DUTY PART TWO D A M A G E S Art. CA) action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. of the closure of the passageway. Court held amount to a legal injury or wrong. an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney. Casis Question: What are examples of damage absque injuria?   41 . or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings. Upon the defendant’s motion. such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages. recompense. hurt. the • The recompense or compensation awarded for damages suffered. claiming to be injured by a criminal offense. (People v. Importance and Definition • The pecuniary compensation. When a person. Damnum absque proceedings. complainant may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. CA (1996) Held Pacifico owned a property surrounded by The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered immovable. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property. Such civil (Custodio v. the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal the defendants AND damage resulting therefrom. Pacifico filed for There must be damnum et injuria. since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong o Injury – illegal invasion of a legal right o Damage – the loss.

vs.000. C.. giving rise to a restorative surgery while P32.00 (or of contract of carriage integrity. D. Delim. Types of Damages (MENTAL) provided it is allowed by law/ stipulation (takes form of liquidated damages) v Art 2197 • Even if pecuniary loss is proven.000.000. 2. Except as provided by law or by stipulation. Court noted the lapse of Areglado. Araneta involved for P288. II. liable for P12. this Court time (increase in cost. contracts. is a violation of bodily Also.00 the bus she was riding got resulting from the amount. the surgery is purely Perpenian who shall be including P10k for the restoration to her conditio cosmetic.000. PROOF REQUIRED o Actual or compensatory o Liquidated 1. divided among the involved in an accident.   42 . premised upon competent proof or the best beyond reasonable doubt. quasi-contracts and crimes) 2 Possible Interpretations of "except as provided for by law or by stipulation": • Actual damages may be awarded even if pecuniary loss is not proven. especially one on Court appears to have them shall be liable for the on her forehead because the face of the woman. an accomplice. the surgical removal of the scar on the face of a young boy. Conspiracy between amount of indemnity and measurement in market value 10 people was established damages than Perpenian • Reasonable degree of certainty. compensatory damages for. one is entitled to an adequate • Art 2195 – DAMAGES not limited to torts or QD – applicable to all compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Delim difference in the degrees of Held Casis Critiques (1991) their participation. Halil Gambao • Claimant is duty-bound to point out specific facts that afford a basis for Held Casis Critiques (2013) measuring the award Each principal accused. infra) People v. Court did not provide a Conviction for kidnapping appellant should shoulder a formula at all. Apportionment of Damages • Judges cannot make estimates based on their knowledge of the cost (but see Gatchalian v. among other things. 2199. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. a fish greater share in the total • Losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of (pecuniary) dealer. infliction of injury upon principals who shall be liable She filed a suit for breach her. DEFINITION/ PURPOSE • Art 2198 – principles of general law on damages are adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Civil Code Art. Law on Damages • Art 2196 – rules under the title are without prejudice to special provisions o damages formulated elsewhere in the Code A. merely estimated the total amount of P300. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. obligations in 1157 (law. In Araneta.00 each) and and prayed for damages legitimate claim for here. Nature of loss and proof for ransom of Chan. awarded actual or difficulty of removal). et al. • Court is required to state the factual bases of the award in decision Taking into account the Gatchalian v. who was adjudged as only evidence obtainable the act on 1 is the act of all. et al. cost of plastic surgery. actual damages may not be awarded if this o Moral is provided for by law/ stipulation (in effect. Pleading and proof of actual damage • The award must be based on the evidence presented E. ante. a stipulation on liquidated o Exemplary or corrective damages) o Nominal o Temperate or moderate B.00. all of Woman suffered a wound A scar.

the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. normally. While in NY. to give breath to the evidence). the price quotations other words. Actual/compensatory provisions on damages". Baretto Candano v.failure to receive as a benefit that which would have confirmation from TransWorld Airlines. Franco Held Casis Critiques opportunities. Sugata-on Held Casis Critiques Held Casis Critiques (2011) (2007) Oceaneering transported Oceaneering is entitled to The cited definition is Sugata-on went missing 50%rule: Because Art. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered. Sps. They sued TWA. but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. 2206(1) could Time Charter Agreement. PH law were placed on the waitlist because applies. CA (1998) Held American Airlines. the BPI Family v. malice or wanton attitude. reimbursed for actual cost of the Stevedoring collided. In General seats. 2200. Court adopted the the gross annual income capacity. 2199 and of the agreement plus the materials salvaged). In contracts and quasi-contracts party is entitled to recover for the wrong done and Art. CA (1993) Held Sps. the damages for which the obligor who acted in injuries received when good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation. Hence. dishonored because his some moral obliquity and accounts). Court pegged it at 50% of award for loss of earning Oceaneering sued Baretto receipts in its Answer This case is instructive on 1711. actual owner at the time and place of the loss. However. time the obligation was constituted. that is.   43 . it would not apply because PH pertained to him They arrived an hour before boarding but follows lex loci contractus. it partakes of the nature of fraud. Zalamea v. Checks Bad faith imports a foreseeable consequence hearsay evidence because the authors assessed is the value of the chattel to its he issued were dishonest purpose or of its breach (freezing of were not made to testify. The • Daño emergente . proved by vouchers and intentional acts. C. essentially similar goods. Oceaneering v. actual damages. Actual damages were sum of money which he would have to (2007) proven though the sole testimony of pay in the market for identical or BPI unilaterally froze No bad faith on the part of BPI still could have been MEFC's GM and certain documents. American Airlines tickets. delict. the link between damage and breach need not be natural and probable.loss of what a person already possesses NY to LA. BPI. bad faith. Court did not discuss this. portions duly pleaded and awarded based on indemnity from his jurisprudence shows the not be the basis of the The barge capsized. His wife claimed necessary living expense. and daughter bought tickets from Overbooking amounts to bad faith. 2201. LOSS COVERED • Thus. value of the lost cargo. In contracts and quasi-contracts. the for the unexpired portion (minus the value of the how to plead and prove Villa Rey formula "in order (in the absence of Court cited Arts. Mom and damages which may be reasonably daughter had to buy tickets from attributed to the breach. foreseeability is not a requirement and Art. account was under conscious doing of wrong. employer based on Art. what has to be Authority to Debit. the value of the equipment and plaintiff is entitled to their value at the unrealized profits and lost business time of destruction. and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the none were intended". damages "are those damages which an injured 2. In case of fraud. Art. in the absence of good faith. Even • Lucro cesante . they received US law allowing it was not proven. True enough. 2201. 1711 covers construction materials on unexpired portion AND inaccurate as actual when employer's vessel In computing the neither a crime/quasi- Baretto's barge under a actual damages for the damages may also be sank. It acted out of the liable for damages if it Court held that while plaintiff would have proper case damages for the loss of use suspecting funds were impetus of self-protection were proven that the been entitled to the value at the time of during the period before replacement. refunded. In transferred to him and not out of injury to Franco (dishonor destruction. Zalameas should be Vessels owned by MEFC and Luzon Where goods are destroyed by the TWA alleged that under US law. the damages were not sufficiently proven. of checks) was a submitted partook of the nature of profit‑earning chattels. 2200. Instead of being PNOC v. plus in a Franco's accounts. if proven. Next flight was also full. In accordance with Art. other passengers had taken all the TWA should be responsible for all 1. MEFC prayed for wrongful act of the defendant the overbooking was an accepted practice. in the case of emanating from a forged malevolence or ill-will. garnishment. Only nominal damages were awarded.

2202. nor a quasi-delict. He that he applied for. Gatchalian v. when the circumstance was appreciated Plaintiff claimed P1. Sarcia was convicted of rape. foreseeability and good faith are irrelevant. then the Court impairment of earning capacity of a person injured but not killed. of. while Art. amount of P10M" for the loss or nevertheless). it stood to lose its goodwill concept of damages. • But the Court used Art. The award of applies to torts as well. No justifiable ground to depart from the defendants. that he acted with evident Deducting his expenses. the employee crimes and quasi-delicts. episodic) claimed is loss of Llorente was charged with Llorente was guilty of Thus. damages for qualified rape. 19 district supervisor for a she may not be awarded necessarily shown by his was acquitted because job would have given him which is neither a crime job as a substitute public damages on the basis of employment status. business standing Art. Earning capacity. expense and the remaining years that he guilty of abuse of right (he defendant liable for all "quasi-delict" is held to be is expected to live. it may be suggested that Art.3. life care cost based on average monthly damages because he was Art. 2205. there was no evidence a salary of P150k in 5 yrs. Woman suffered a wound In view of her employment This is correct if what is Held Casis Critiques Sandiganbayan (1991) on her forehead because status (casual. Art. 2205(1) applies to loss or consequences of the act provisions. Damages may be recovered: the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. Because of specifically applies to involved in an accident. 2204.   44 . 2205(1) covers both temporary and permanent injury. teacher's job. Loss or impairment of earning capacity according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. It Mercury Drug truck collided with a car Court affirmed award of P23. It is not necessary (1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. 2202 Mercury Drug v. awarded in the concept of temperate or less than P75k. Tabusares Jr. In crimes. 19 is considered a tort. impairment of his earning capacity PNOC v. Because Civil liability ex delicto is equivalent to of lack of proof of his age and the date of actual damages. If Art. the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are Art. Fausto Held appreciated with respect to the penalty and her family. Sarcia (2009) Held (Magbanua v. damages include all the synonym of quasi-delict Considering that Art. a person's certificate of clearance to was not able to land jobs the Court held it to ba the way to confer with the submitted any basis and earning capacity is not one PCA employee. probable life Case where 2 vessels "In actions based on torts Assuming that the Court expectancy. if rape is moral/evidentiary certainty. She claims she was on employment. Even if it is not awarded in the which the death penalty is authorized. The minority of the b. 2202 which holds the 2202 is concerned. Court found the claim unsupported. 2202 applicable supported by the fact that Art. speculation or conjecture. But if what is violation of RA3019 for abuse or right." to such tort provisions. She has not capacity. This may be or omission complained holds Art. moderate damages. CA (1998) Held Casis Critiques considering his age. 2205(1) in a case where the injured person died People v.1M as An award of damages for lost goodwill or for lack of proof rather than compensation for lost goodwill or reputation falls under actual or Starting with this case. it bad faith (element of the actual damages amount may be said that Art. or quasi-delicts. • In crimes and quasi-delicts. 2202 the bus she was riding got CA held she could not be earnings. the privileged offender has no bearing on the gravity mitigating circumstance of minority was and extent of injury caused to the victim Tanay Recreation Center v. In crimes and quasi-delicts 4. reputation.4M for the to pay compensatory P90k was justified under seems that as far as Art. PLUS a "conservative acted with bad faith "natural and probable" equivalent to "tort". and his mental and physical collided. it may still be the indemnity shall be increased to not jurisprudential trend in the award of and reputation established for 20 years. actual is not using torts as a condition before the accident. Either applicable to Art. Delim Held Casis Critiques (1991) Llorente v. In crimes and quasi-delicts. damages. defendant. alleging that because of the compensatory damages as provided in qualified by any circumstance under unjust and wrongful conduct of the Art.). Injury to business standing or commercial credit the commission. 2205. that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the (2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit. More so in this case (2005) *not a required case but not as regards his civil liability. said to have lost any meant is loss of earning refusing to issue a his actions. the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened a. 2206(1) makes the defendant liable for the loss of the earning natural and probable but as referring to tort-like capacity of the deceased. driven by a (very promising) 16y/o. Huang (2007) Held offense) but he was made to P90k.

even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. the minimum wage of loss of earning capacity because no Evidence presented. Exceptions: capacity. as in this case. no documentary expenses). Note that Villa Rey did not involve a crime or that he earned P400-P500. Widow's testimony as to basis for which the court where the testimony is 2. Perhaps it should indemnity. Defense did not sources: salary. SC deleted the award far from the regional min wage of P400. Halil Gambao (2013) Held PH Rabbit bus collided Failure to present Tracing the roots of the Kidnapping for ransom of a woman who The Court took the opportunity to with a car. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291.Living Expenses intestate succession. are to be considered. the Court awarded P50k. The bus earning capacity of the justify it as a principle to penalty for the crime comitted is death company and driver deceased need not be be applied in future cases. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. It awarded P100k each for civil substantial proof to prove Testimonial evidence apply it. o Deceased was self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage (judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the People v. The problem is when to 9346. and the his salary range plus his honorarium and earning capacity can be derived from 2 indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. Thus. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. 2206. She absence of documentary evidence. As to the computation of loss of earning demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. inflating the amount. increase the amounts of indemnity and awarded to the heirs of a support a claim for loss of body of jurisprudence to damages whrere. People) Pleyto v. The Court has also applied the same for cases not under 2206. the victim's net (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount P950. DEATH BY CRIME OR QUASI-DELICT People v. the car passenger. Lee (2010) Held (3) The spouse. suffices to establish a only be applied to cases exemplary damages. there seems to be inconsistency on whether income of P1M from leasing and for the lease and operation of the gas the award is P50k or P75k. In the damages based on quasi-delict. court can make a fair and reasonable estimate widow. Civil/ death indemnity testified her husband earned an annual reasonable to peg necessary expenses • In crimes resulting in death. In addition: 2 certifications from his office showing by the court. victim was P1M. and honorarium and assessed and awarded by the court. if seen as credible o (Another possible exception provided in Pleyto v. may demand support from the person causing the death. it is 1. should stand in the absence Testimonial evidence suffices to establish a basis for which the except for the "bare assertions" of his of clear basis to refute it. Lopez (2011) Held Lopez was found guilty of murder and Evidence not objected to is deemed Art. However. here was too meager. But if the imposable penalty presented a tax certificate showing her peg the living expenses at 50% of the net was only reclusion perpetua. In any event. only net earnings. 2206. These awards are mandatory without need of business. of the commission of the offense. of P50k each is granted automatically in the absence of any qualifying evidence was presented re: copra Using this formula. and she station at 80% of the gross income. Lomboy (2004) Held Casis Critiques People v. Victim's wife presented admitted and may be validly considered three thousand pesos. object when the prosecution presented transpo allowance. which cannot be imposed because of RA argued that there was no fatal to its cause. not gross injured. and penalty was death had it not been for RA 9346. husband earned a gross income of income (gross income less necessary • In robbery with homicide. Lomboy) documentary evidence was presented by the RTC. His widow was capacity. hence her testimony as to that that the net earning capacity of the allegation and evidence other than the death of the victim owing to the fact could not be considered. for a period not exceeding five years. Damages were documentary evidence to rule. reasonable estimate for is no reason to suspect • Not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to earn money the loss of earning that the witness is • General rule: Documentary evidence should be presented. such indemnity shall in every case be transpo allowance. unearned income. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. The Court awarded P75k if the imposable operating a gas station. moral damages. there is a sufficient was the proprietor of a market stall. Motorcycle driver died. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may Phil. Loss of earning capacity husband's income was can make a fair and highly credible and there used as a basis.   45 . the these docs. Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or Gross Annual Income . D. Philippine Hawk v. and the victim's gross income. Ibañez (2013) Leonen Concurring & Dissenting Opinion deceased's line of work. the Court determined aggravating circumstances.988. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least sentenced to RP. The P25k awarded quasi-delict. no documentary evidence is available) 2 accused were convicted of murder and The widow's estimate does not vary too o Deceased was employed as a daily wage worker earning less than sentenced to RP. The latter filed an action for earnings. (Crisostomo v. Hawk's vehicle hit a motorcycle. He did not fall under either of the the Court has awarded temperate • The Court has used the Villa Rey formula to determine the loss of earning 2 exceptions because his widow testified damages in lieu of an award for capacity under Art.

The reason for this rule (8) In actions for Indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws. the award of civil indemnity (7) In actions for the recovery of Wages of household helpers. Victor: (9) In a Separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime. attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.reaction to the apathetic societal (10) When at least Double judicial costs are awarded. IAC Held civil indemnity.expression of the Court's displeasure In all cases. Bartolini (2010) Held motion for confirmation of his atty's separate action. except: (ELMUR'S WISe DJ must be reasonable. because the main case has not reached finality. for professional services. civil indemnity. was given in People v. The remedy for recovering attorney's fees as an incident of the main action may be availed of only when something is due to the client. The Court must state explicitly in the body of the actual damages. . other than Accused was convicted of raping his Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the judicial costs.) daughter by means of force and finding of the fact of rape. in addition to the moral damages awarded. . sentenced to RP. which TC granted. It found trial. simple rape should equal the award for claims are based on an alleged contract and guilty of 1 count of simple rape. Court reduced intimidation. Astrologo (2007) Held Art. Hence. The imposable penalty would have been the penalty of death were it not for RA (6) In actions for legal Support. Bañago (1999) Held lawyer but an award in favor of the litigant. Still. which is in the nature of equitable justification. the accused should pay P75k by way of Quirante v. He was sentenced to RP the award to P50k because the crime (1) When Exemplary damages are awarded. IN RAPE CASES F. E. the • Atty's fees must be specifically prayed for. Here. the award of civil indemnity and the judgment creditor who may enforce him guilty of 2 counts of qualified rape moral damages in a conviction for by execution). what is Lower courts found the accused guilty of Where the special qualifying fees. 9346. It also increased with IAC that the motion is premature the civil indemnity from P50k to P75k. 2208 2 daughters. The Court modified the although not alleged in the information. Dr. legal. Atty. SC agrees sentencing him to RP. and to pay P75k as civil indemnity. Apattad (2011) Held (3) In criminal cases of Malicious prosecution against the plaintiff. 2208 is not payment for services rendered by a People v. is mandatory upon the decision the legal reason for the award. People v. the crime would justify the imposition of plaintiff's plainly valid. The accused was convicted of 3 counts When the circumstances surrounding (4) In case of a clearly Unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff. not his counsel (litigant is being alleged in the information. ATTORNEY'S FEES People v. (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to Litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. and damages was awarded. but IAC reversed claimed here is different from the atty's 3 counts of incestuous rape against his circumstances of age and relationship. Only P50k moral discretionary on the part of the court. qualified rape. the litigant. (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in Refusing to satisfy the of qualified rape (raped his daughter). fees as an item for damages in Art.   46 . who is the judgment creditor Accused was found guilty of rape and While the award of moral damages is who may enforce the judgment (Quirante v. considering the main case was still wherein the award is made in favor of judgment because of certain facts not are nonetheless established during the pending before the SC. because the motion was premature. In the absence of stipulation. cannot be recovered. the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. IAC). 2208. over the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity • The attorney's fees in Art. However. This demands factual. the petitioner's and sentenced him to RP in lieu of death. committed was only simple rape. Casasola obtained favorable Counsel's claim for atty's fees may be judgment in a case. just and demandable claim. Quirante filed a asserted either in the same or in a People v. should be P75k. finding of the fact of rape. laborers and skilled workers. perception of the penal law and the (11) In any other case where the court deems it Just and equitable that attorney's fees and financial fluctuations over time expenses of litigation should be recovered. death were it not for RA 9346.

party’s persistence in a then the CA's award for case other than an atty's fees should likewise erroneous conviction of be deleted. atty's fees can't be recovered except Sps. and TC specifically prayed for in its Answer. rights. (2011) Pilhino caused the levy on Not entitled to atty's fees. exemplary basis of the CA's award against the bank and was when a claimant is Art. The power of PNCC v. CA third persons or to incur outside the NPC property. its basis cannot atty's fees + P3k per appearance case as one that falls within the be left to speculation or conjecture. It is not enough that they merely state the amount in the dispositive. damages. it is imperative that they clearly and distinctly set forth in their decisions the basis for the award thereof. Due court must explicitly state in the body of the services of a counsel. 2208 (2). and of money. 19 and 21. is by definition one Sps. Atty's fees must be specifically prayed sued Pilhino based on premium should be unfounded civil suit did for—as was not done in this case—and Arts. 2208(4). Even the basis of the award is in the said case. be awarded because the PRCI filed a complaint to the winning party. since it's already required decision was devoid of any statement in an unfounded civil suit. Pilhino Held Casis Critiques in cases provided for. The compensatory damages and attorney’s Andrada Jr. It requested Meralco injury to Ramoy. Ramoy Bank of America v. Briones mistakenly constructed a The Court deletes the award to Vergon of previously owned by Jose necessary to predicate the instituted in bad faith. did not act in a wanton. Since the Court deleted. It was However. Moises was not established. hence the only be taken to mean (stolen) checks pre. later found out that the damages should not be was its grant of exemplary awarded P20k atty's fees. not established is the possession of the parcel of land. of stipulation. may not be deemed incorporated within sought Atty's fees based litigate and that not every a general prayer for “such other relief on Art. it follows that contributory negligence. the Court is case. award exemplary could be reflected in a damages in this case. house on the Macabagdals' lot. could be granted. Held Casis Critiques Held Casis Critiques (2008) Racing (2009) NPC won in an ejectment Meralco willfully caused SC's statement should A John Doe encashed An adverse decision does By this ruling. The because "plaintiff was compelled to hire exception provided under Art. APAC sued PNCC for collection of sum There is an obvious lack of a compelling 2208 demands factual. Hence.” The body of the TC’s attorney’s fees. regarding attorney’s fees. No same as saying that an awarded P30k in atty's fees. 2208. Since the Court among others. to litigate and to the special nature of the award of the decision. and not only in the to protect his interest by reason of an attorney’s fees. still attorney’s fees but dismissed the claim oppressive or malevolent atty's fees are also may not be awarded for damages and atty's manner. CA granted all does not deem it proper to showing of bad faith claims. award of attorney’s fees part of the losing party if supply to the defendants award of moral damages.   47 . 2208(4). Andrada v. and placed on the right to not exist. not ipso facto justify an requiring bad faith on the to disconnect the power latter is entitled to CA's that atty's fees could not signed by PRCI officers. legal. CA imposed on the courts before these fees reason for the award of atty’s fees. reckless. Manila Electric v. TC granted and awarded P50k legal reason to consider the present equitable justification. compelled to litigate with Ramoys' property was awarded because Meralco damages. when it had grant of attorney’s fees stating that bad faith was latter won in an action for recovery of fees as such amounts were not already been sold to based on Art. where no sufficient fees. Macabagdal (2010) Held execution of a Hino truck Pilhino's bad faith. a rigid standard is dispositive portion thereof. If an unfounded civil suit Briones v. APAC (2013) Held the court to award atty’s fees under Art. affirmed. deleted the exemplary affirmed but SC found expenses to protect his TC ordered reconnection fraudulent. the legal unjustified act of the other party". Moises Andrada. winning party is entitled Bad faith requirement and remedy as this court may deem just to an automatic grant of here is more palatable and equitable. as Article 2208 the righteousness of his states that in the absence cause. Phil.

the interest shall Circular No. be considered a loan payable in 6 mos. payment of additional interest at a rate equal not be disturbed. petitioner has the period of W/N to buy. and in the absence of stipulation. in the discretion of the court. whether under par. Frias and Dr. and the debtor incurs in delay.a. Dr. LA ordered to make another recomputation. Breach involving payment of a sum of money (loans/ forbearances of money).. 2013. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages. be on the amount finally amended so that: adjudged. on breach of contract. however. the rate of legal interest. is fair and reasonable. Equitable (2010): prospectively. in a proper case. This means that no interest will the obligation may be silent upon this point.a.a. from 3. 2013. an interest on the amount illegal dismissal case. until their full satisfaction. In the absence of an express stipulation 3. interest as a part of the damages may. the indemnity for damages.a. from such finality until its satisfaction. this interim period being money.   48 . i. Prior to July 1. OR 2) if 25%p. then 12% p. 2210. 12% 1. to be computed from default. only 2. from Prudential Bank showed interest in the interest due should be: 1) that which may have been stipulated in writing. INTEREST Frias v. and this is not a violation of the damages except when or until the demand can be established with SC resolution. allowed in judgments shall be 6% p. there being no stipulation to the contrary. The rate of (plus the interest shall itself earn legal interest from judicial demand). CA (1994): mos. BSP Monetary Board issued cannot be so reasonably established at time of demand.a. 2213. or in cases of to June 30. Gallery Frames (2013) Held Nacar obtained favorable judgment in an The illegal dismissal ruling stands. measure for damages in cases of delay is the payment of penalty interest agreed upon by the parties. 799.a. No interest. applies. Certification 1. In crimes and quasi-delicts. be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay in case of decision not to buy). which latter paid P2M in cash (option money to a loan.a. Nacar v. CA reduced rate to 25% from period. to pay the loan with their agreement that suggests that compounded bank interest for the last 6 interest will be charged for Rules provided in Eastern Shipping v. in any case. the legal interest.a. 2212. Anent the computation of time the claim is made judicially/ extrajudicially) but when such certainty interest. CA rules are the computation of legal interest shall. instead of 12% p. period provides that if respondent would decide while appellee was making up her mind Art.a. principle of immutability of final reasonable certainty. upon Frias' failure to pay. The actual base for Eastern Shipping v.a. Re: judgments that have become final and executory prior to July 1. except when the not to buy. 2209. Frias alleges the agreement be charged for the first 6-mo. Breach not involving a loan/forbearance of money. G. from judicial/ extrajudicial demand under and subject to Art. Certainly. P2M at 32%p. the appropriate p. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money. the rate of legal executory. 2002) consist of payment of legal interest which is 6%. above. 2013. no stipulation. Interest may. collection suit. be allowed upon damages awarded for decided not to buy the property and the CA in awarding a 25% interest p. only. begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court. interest is to be set at 12%p. there is nothing in demand can be established with reasonably certainty. If so established. shall be the Sison entered into a MOA for which the always bears interest otherwise it is not payment of the interest agreed upon.e. filed a the P2M loan even beyond the second Art. only even if it takes Frias an eternity to pay the loan. In discharging an obligation involving a sum of money. effective July 1. shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or decision from dismissal until finality of affected. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and as to the rate of interest. that a loan Art. 1991 ranged from 25-32%. The Court be adjudicated in the discretion of the court. they shall 2. another 6 mos. then damages payable will finality of the resolution (May 27. from 12/07/91 until fully adopted the CA's interpretation of the Art. 2211. to the regular monetary interest becomes due and payable.a. 12%p. Hence in this case. 2013. and at 6% from July 1. In the absence of stipulation. RTC ordered Frias to pay six months stipulated period. 6 mos. SDS interest. applied Rules provided in Pan Pacific v. San Diego. While the CA’s conclusion. although paid. we find no error committed by Art. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded.. 1 or par. He asked for the computation of monetary of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at recomputation of backwages in LA's consequences of this dismissal is 6% p. shall interest for loans or forbearance of any be 12% p. 1169. 06/07/91. goods or credits and the rate deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. loans/forbearances of money. If no regular interest had been agreed upon. is flawed since a simple loan may is six per cent per annum. 2. the interest shall begin to run from the judgments. San Diego-Sison (2007) Held On 12/07/90.

by Mackay. the amount of damages awarded cannot be reduced. is measure the discharged employee had infractor. Art. the party suffering loss breached their obligations. CA (2002) Held (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event. Ong v. CA (1983) Held CA and SC affirmed. by the roadside to corrode and decay. which would have been payable to the reimbursement for transpo expenses in or injury must exercise the diligence of a 1st infractor is compensated instead by returning to San Francisco after he was good father of a family to minimize the Court reconciled Arts. (5) That since the filing of the action. We The plaintiff referred to in Art. it is the developed engine trouble. Rich wanted Under Art. efforts to preserve the property injured wherein the passenger was brought to a The harm done to private respondents and for injuries incurred in attempting to different port because the ship outweighs any benefits they may have prevent damage to it. as in the we find the answer in jurisprudence: following instances: CBA LossLess • If the party at fault sufficiently proves that the injured party was remiss in (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract. 2214. quasi-contracts. and an integral part of the injury caused. However. despite the word expenses incurred by him in seeking or "shall" in Art. the damages awarded may be reduced (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract. preventing further injury. being he would derive some advantage by his an indirect consequence of the act of the own act or neglect. 1192. failing in normal schedule. the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article. on the other hand. Note: Costs undertaken by the injured party will be recovered from the party at fault (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded. In the instant case. that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel. or negligent act of another should The owner refused all proposals to repair exercise reasonable care and diligence it and filed a complaint against those to minimize the resulting damage. that he may recover. 1192 and 2215. Owner and contractor both liable for damages at all. the 2nd infractor also derived or thought person liable to pay the damage. 2203. TC granted. derived from being transported to burden of petitioners to show Tacloban instead of being taken to satisfactorily not only that the injured Catbalogan. the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. While the provision does not state the consequences of not complying with this rule. 1192. 2215(1) consider it reasonable that whatever should be deemed to be the 2nd The 1st infractor. wrongdoer money lost in reasonable Suit for breach of contract of carriage Article 2215(2) is inapplicable herein. but the same shall be taken to minimize the damage he damages may be mitigated is the 1st equitably tempered by the courts. since suffered should be at the cost of the infractor. In contracts. of another. this regard. the 2nd infractor is not Mackay Radio v. Lim v. their destination and the party could have mitigated his damages vessel's first port of call. Bogñabal (2006) Held Construction of a boutique in EDSA Under Art. In quasi-delicts. 2203. the damages Among others. pursuant to its but also the amount thereof. H. in obtaining other employment. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a Art.   49 . liability. latter. Anyway. and quasi-delicts. It is but just that an employee The directions to equitably temper the wrongfully discharged by his employer liability of the 1st infractor in Arts. 2215. Rich (1969) Held Shang. 1192 should be entitled to recover from his and 2215 are both subject to the employer the necessary and reasonable discretion of the court. he can recover from the Sweet Lines v. the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's Jeepney involved in a collision was left One who is injured then by the wrongful loss or injury. MITIGATION OF DAMAGES Art. responsible for the accident. while the one whose liability for liable for damages. the mitigation of the 1st infractor's wrongfully discharged from employment damage resulting from the act/ omission they are not irreconcilably conflicting. DUTY TO MINIMIZE I.

Being clubbed is besmirched reputation. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and descendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the multiple injuries.claim must be factual in damages to victim for the origin. and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 2220. Within Specific Cases To compensate claimant for actual injury suffered (CQ / SarlAc / IdIs / Lsd / MA309 / 21. referred to in No. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering. Cleopas & Act/omission falls within specfied cases of Art 2219/2220 Held Casis Critiques • Pirame (2000) Victim struck with iron Moral and exemplary Court did not characterize 1. The same . (Basis: Art. Husband of . not supported by unforeseeable. murder. mental. 9 of this article. and 35. Need for testimony on moral suffering B. fright. 2206 (3). (8) Malicious prosecution. raped. (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. did not testify on any stabbing. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the passenger suffered: damages be awarded. 2. Code Commission – predicated on the idea that physical suffering. 26. To compensate the morally injured (7) Libel. The parents of the female seduced. and sumilar injury are incapable of pecuniary estimatio.26-30. damages unsupported death as violent but it was Respondents guilty of because widow of victim no less violent than Art. social humiliation. 27. Includes crimes resulting to death evidence. 2219. slander or any other form of defamation. 30.“The loss is immediate . the loss or injury is just as real as in other cases. Moral Suffering is the proximate result pipe and piece of wood. The spouse. abduction. To alleviate his suffering (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309. moral damages may be recovered if emotional distress due to since death is not as they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. Simplified: • Moral suffering is proximate result of act/omission People v. PURPOSE Art. 32. 2217) • Factually established culpable act/omission • Act/om is proximate cause of injury In some cases of violent death or brutal killing. CA (1997) Held Casis Critiques Bus bumped truck. But it is unquestionable that (3) Seduction. Court held that allegation and proof • Award of damages predicated on Art 2219 or 2220 of moral suffering not required. in the order named. rather a. 28. WHEN RECOVERABLE Conditions to be met: General rule: there must be a testimony of moral suffering before moral damages • Clearly substantiated physical. alleviate the moral suffering The spouse. moral shock. *Compensatory NOT punitive. under the circumstances. abducted. serious anxiety. or psychological injury can be awarded. MORAL DAMAGES.” i. Jurisprudence: (6) Illegal search.34.32. must find basis in Art. mental anguish. III. Rodriguez (invalid court should find that. (4) Adultery or concubinage. 29. such damages are justly due.Injuries requiring major there must be pleading husband) re: MC rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith surgeries. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. 3 of this Intended to enable the injured party to obtain means. aimed at restoration of the spiritual status quo ante. may also recover moral damages. A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries loss of marital consortium how his right to MC was than remote and (MC) affected. • Claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of factual basis of damage and its causal connection to defendant’s act   50 . Kierulf v. 2. descendants. mental anguish. 34. Truck In order that moral Take note of cited case Art. and similar mental anguish or actually more violent injury. (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21.35) A. ascendants. rape. 1. evidence and findings of deceased Court ii. and proof. diversions or amusements to article. or abused. husband’s death. Court awarded . Though incapable of pecuniary computation. immediate. or other lascivious acts. wounded feelings.Disfigured face hence victim did not testify on and consequential. (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest.

Lomotan (2008) Held its commencement BF Metal’s truck driven by Rivera hit jeep BF Metal (negligence in supervision) and • Action terminated with an acquittal driven by Umuyon. Accused Award of moral damages What started out as * Art. It can be said for malicious c. to Umuyon. award if convicted for which should only affect qualified rape amount not w/n it should be awarded. social humiliation. Rivera (negligence) liable for moral dam • In bringing the action. Jeep was a total wreck. No basis to award moral • Prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice Umuyon sustained injuries rendering dam to Lomotan bec accident was not him unable to drive. ikaw nga Barangay Captain. Maybe because rape without need of circ are not alleged but impose a penalty on right imprisonment is only further proof other than proven during trial. Court anguish. Moral damages e. Arcona v. mental bamboo. 2219(6). damages. Malicious Prosecution b. Villarmea (2013) Held Casis Critiques • May also fall under Art. Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest convicted of murder of anguish on victim’s stabbing as violent. Victim 2. Rape or Other Lascivious Acts the amount for 4 plane justification for atty’s fees prosecution suits. At best. Libel.   51 . Seduction. 33 is not part of the enumeration but Prof Casis says so in his book guilty of murder increased from P10k to “violent death” exception P50k even without proof to the rule requiring Occena v. Lizano (2007) Held Casis Critiques were already paid. CA (2002) Held Casis Critiques * Parents of female seduced. the comission of the crime award of civil indemnity BUT there is anxiety either because it is assumed and moral dam in simple way.F. 2219 (10) Victim stabbed. Court tickets even though they but not for moral did not explain why moral People v. the to litigate. suffering. Metal v. stabbed. Bartolini: for the rule is: the law awarded for unfounded of aunt. g. Abduction. which is also included in Art. willful (Art 2220) nor did it cause them Expertravel v. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries Jurisprudence provides moral damages may be awarded: • Not limited to criminal action. and wounded feelings. The rationale damages can't be 11 y. possible for criminal suits. Slander or any other form of Defamation People v. 32. Art 2219 (7) emotional pain rule not requiring allows recover of moral dam for injury to testimony of moral feelings and reputation. malugus. it could also fall under Art. f. hudas” = because the offense was one where necessarily brings about now become a general convicted of slight oral defamation there is an offended party.o. Icamina (1990) Held of mental or emotional testimony of moral “Gago. family. CA b) Where the defendant is guilty of intentional tort c) Breaches of contract by tort Elements from Magbanua v. there is only that victim suffered moral rape should equal the a question of degree injuries. CA (1999) Held Casis Critiques phys injuries (Art 2219) Expertravel filed a This was an unfounded Same rationale can be complaint for recovery of civil suit. 33. raped or abused also entitled to moral Victim 1 hit with piece of A violent death invariably Conflict between Cleopas damages because they also suffer besmirched reputation. Junsay (PAPL) • Fact of the prosecution and the defendant was prosecutor or he instigated B. Illegal Search must be awarded even in • Although separate item in Art. Victim is entitled to P5k moral damages suffering as violent death suffering (Arcona) has Montisco. abducted. traidor. owned by Sps. 2219(10) proof. raped by husband Moral damages are Cited People v. prosecutor acted without probable cause Lomotan. which absence of allegation and is also included in Art. includes civil and administrative suits also a) When an act/om causes physical injuries according to Drilon v. automatically granted in where special qualifying could not have meant to civil suits. Victim 2 and necessarily brings and Arcona. Accused only about emotional painand characterized death by d.

28. descendants. h. basis such as testimony as to his sufferings. 30. Also caused social but art. 27. NLRC (not assigned. jeep damages to jeep driver. and social humiliation lasted a few minutes. o Industrial Insurance v. deprivation of property considered as taking thus funeral shall be liable to the family of the deceases. public official may be made to pay damages for performing a perfectly legal act. ascendants.” (Vital-Gozon v. than 2219. Acts mentioned in Article 309 Held Casis Critiques Chua (2010) Spouse. 35 havoc on the lives of Sps. enumeration. It of disconnection wreaked would be easier to prove i. because kidnapping only felt extreme embarrassment and shame wounded feelings. public humiliation. Article 32 – Violation of Civil and Political Rights Manila Electric v. directly caused by work)   52 . scandalous and insulting language Reasons why no moral damages in unfounded civil suits from Malonzo v. • 2219 excludes quasi-delicts not resulting in physical injuries A claimant’s failure to state the monetary award of moral damages suffered o unfounded civil actions are not limited to quasi-delictual actions. but included in 2208 Article 27 – Refusal or Neglect of Duty o Casis comment: intention of CC to limit award of atty’s fees and A public officer may be liable for moral damages for as long as the moral damages moral damages to specific cases BUT neither 2208 nor 2219 are suffered were the proximate result of the public officer’s wrongful act/omission. wife doubted fidelity. material and moral “Power thieves. awarded moral damages hit car. wrongfully accused of Awarded moral damages for the mental restrained from going serious anxiety and fright. Court awarded moral When public utility order stated. Acts and actions referred to in Article 21. treated to unfair bad faith or fraud or constituted an act property (winnings) property. CA (1999) Held Casis Critiques Racehorse winnings Awarded nominal NOT There was no taking in Triple Eight v NLRC (1998) Held withheld by PCSO moral because no BF. malicious prosecution and oppressive dismissal. in book only) the side of the road. did not identify any other employment = unfair labor practice. damages for an • Doctor-spouses illegally dismissed. Any person who shows disrespect to the dead. CA (2000) Held months in a forest. Manner violation of Art 32. Cojuangco v. A exhaustive. Sps. 19 is not part of Article 21 – Acts Contra Bonos Mores humiliation Art 2219 (10) • Intended to provide legal remedy for untold number of moral wrongs. It presents no legal obstacle to the court’s determination as long as there is factual may be based on Art 21. Madsali (2010) Held Casis Critiques Article 26 – Violation of Human Dignity Victim was detained for 5 Entitled to P50k moral Cited case of People v. Court • Illegal dismissal + circulation of “watch out list” intended to prevent company sued jeep driver. gives right to damages knowing they were not at basis for the award other fault. • Applicable for: moral seduction. 32. And BF is not working conditions. 26. withholding of prize so it’s Saudi Arabia (supposed to be as waitress dismissal of employee was attended of PCGG violation of right to use not really a deprivation of but ended up as janitor). People v. Concepcion v. husband anguish. damages having suffered Bernardo where they “Kabit ka ni Bing!”. as proximate result of abusive. Galang: • Not one of the cases included in Art 2219. 29. unpaid salaries. • Does not fall within “analogous cases” albeit with bad faith or in violation of the “abuse of right doctrine. oppressive to labor necessary to award moral dismissed due to “illness” (carpal tunnel damages under Art 32. w/o due process. reduced moral damages adultery. this through Art 19 or 21 Chua. or wrongfully interferes in a after non-payment. Article 28 – Unfair Competition Held Casis Critiques Bondad (2000) Bus hit a jeep parked at Court awarded moral This case awarded moral Calamba Medical Center v. merely a Recruitment Agency sent employee to Moral damages awarded because pursuant to instructions Liable under Art 32. o If all analogous cases required to be expressly mentioned in 2219 CA) then there would be no such thing as an analogous case. MERALCO disconnected damages because of charges unjustly is Article 309. Insurance unfounded civil suit. this case. 34. and brothers and sisters may bring action in the Electricity bill = P180k. besmirched reputation. home.

Feliciano (2006) Held Dishonored credit card. caused dirt and dust to because Carin failed to requirements for proving The spouse. Land dispute.   53 . (par. Breach of Contract in Bad Faith vessel. Valenzuela Moral damages awarded Ponente did not apply the constructed fence. common carrier was BF Also. ABS CBN contract. Regala was manner by which 1. CA (1999) Held design not necessary to be present. emotions or Mano (2010) senses. Moral damages awarded. Curso did on board a No moral damages Provision excludes k. Nominal damages only. Sps. referred to Renovation of residence No moral damages Gave alternative in No. Bros and sis tried awarded because Art succession collaterally so Gross negligence = bad faith (Expertravel v. malicious. Film exhibtion agreement between ABS RBS won but no moral damages. Carin (2011) Held Casis Critiques Art 2219. delict. Held Casis Critiques person and has no feelings. No BF on business class to because inattention and part of ABSCBN because it was honestly economy lack of care on part of convinced of the merits of the case. in BF. in relation to Art 2206(3) failure to comply = BF/ abuse of right. delict so only Art 19. Ferrer (1999) Held carriage. They willfully caused injury o Exception to exception: Moral damages recoverable in breaches of those to get cut off were truly illegal by withholding electricity. Mere findng of fraud is not alleging it was on his land. abusive. No perfected contract so Viva against ABSCBN was not based on PAL v. which amounted diligence required. to BF. and brothers and sisters may bring the action land on adjoining house. because there was fraud principle to facts of case. ascendants. or quasi- Downgraded from Moral damages awarded “The SC hates airlines” filed complaint against RBS. sufficient to award moral Mano actually damages without fraudulently obtained TCT compliance with 2217 and with larger area. abducted. prevented by Mano in obtaining title. in the order named demolished shared wall caused by Regala’s it required looking into the act/om. CA) to claim damages based 2206 (3) only allows it should only be on breach of contract of spouse. 20 or 21. Ramoy (2008) Held predicated on breach of contract MERALCO disconnected power supply MERALCO breached contract by its o Exception: Breach of contract in bad faith or fraud upon request of NPC without checking if negligence. raped. Public utilities contract of carriage that results in death of passenger in occupants are subject to strict regulation and accordance with Art 1764. corporations are not entitled to moral damages because it is artificial Sps. Willful Injury to Property • General Rule: Moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages Manila Electric v. exclude siblings (inclusio siblings cannot recover reckless. bank’s attempts Moral damages awarded because there 2. or abused. 2) The parents of the female seduced. descendants. Relative of Injured Person engaged in lawful petitioner carried out exercise of property rights renovation. But layers instead of 3 contract was not palpably wanton. WHO MAY RECOVER Regala v. negliegent in descendants to recover. ascendants and recoverable when a) death Francisco v. Lopez (2008) Held Casis Critiques signed agreement with RBS. oppressive or unius est exclusio anyway. results. Valenzuela v. 3 of this article. Juridical Persons to inform card fell short of degree of was gross negligence. 2 No moral damages because breach of transporting passengers Legislative intent is to guilty of fraud. lost order slip. Meaning: conscious or intentional ABS-CBN v. may also recover moral damages. b) carrier was Wedding cake – late. quasi-contract. 9 of this article. Curso and no BF the wrongful/illegal act Held Casis Critiques (2010) precedes the injury Dr.j. Requires that Sulpicio Lines v. establish that injuries was proximate cause because mentioned in No. identification of case under 2219/2220. alterius) Bankard Inc v. C. Claim and Viva.

CA • Traumatic amputation means that reduction of moral damages is unjustified • The gravity of injury. PanAm (1966) Held Casis Critiques Republic v. General rule: juridical should be natural or • Not be so palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was entities not entitled to juridical. “Goldilocks” Principle – Not too much or too little for libel to school. Moral damages Cargill delivered an insufficient amount. wounded feelings. San Fernando won but no moral *A person’s moral suffering is not determined by relationship.economic standing as a PCGG. Also Kierulf v. qualifies whether a person • No hard and fast rule in determining proper amount. serious factor in determining the damages. Tuvera (2007) Held Senator and companions Proximate result of Applying a person’s Wealth acquired fraudulently during No moral damages. CA) authorizes moral damages in case of libel. CA) physical suffering. Just because it the result of passion. extent that it sheds more light on the depth of the San Fernando v. D. awarding moral damages because there was no rude and rough perception.   54 . Lower shared prestige and sufficient to give bank foreclosed mortgaged properties. BPI (2008) Held daughter’s husband all entitlement but not Sps. CA cannot award based on culpa • Social and financial standing of injured person could not be considered in contractual because no BF. Lopez v. Cargill (2013) Held suffering inflicted Both companies cane molasses traders. damages because it cannot be awarded should be determined by degree and gravity of injury. The statements Lopez. Crystal unable to pay loan to BPI so BPI won but no moral damages. courts awarded moral damages citing humiliation. P25k Reference to social status because they are not allowed to go after in the cited cases are mere obiter dicta. to a corporation unless it enjoyed a good rep that the offender besmirched. social.” former VP of Phils. Republic asked for moral case. • Standing may only be considered only if subjected to contemptuous conduct despite offender’s knowledge of social/financial standing. physical and psychological. merits a higher award. Sen. or Marcos period to be sequestered by allows the award of damages in this from First Class. “Any lawyer for the Republic who poses anxiety and mental amount may not be proper a claim for moral damages in behalf of anguish. Valenzuela v. A ridicule. (Valenzuela v. daughter and create sense of Crystal v. caused social humiliation. to daughter and husband is relevant only to the conjugal property. Crystal said foreclosure was illegal Manero and Mambulao. corporations cannot 2. prejudice or corruption moral damages because is not qualified does not • Not be so little or paltry that it rubs salt to the injury already inflicted (Kierulf they cannot experience change the fact that v. His powerful status may wife. Nothing in 2219 got bumped to tourist breach of contract in BF political. Filipinas Broadcasting v. Proportional to and in approximation of suffering inflicted BUT school’s claim falls experience wounded • Award should be commensurate to suffering inflicted under Art 2219 (7) which feelings. FACTORS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING AMOUNT Held Casis Critiques Ago (2005) General Principles: School sued radio show Moral damages awarded There is no provision that 1. Lopez was because suffering is the State stands in risk of serious Senate President and universally experienced. P100k to favorable treatment. San Fernando refused to accept. Factors: Provision does not qualify a) Social and financial standing of injured parties whether person is natural b) Wounded moral feelings and personal pride or juridical. P50k to wife.

their property was taken). entitled to nominal entitled to nominal layered cake but only 2. repeated demands Almeda refused to because it was a violation of right of the inadvertence. Kidnapping and failure to Merano’s right as a parent Merano’s right as a parent return minor. nominal is that injury must reach a nominal damages even though there proper. A. Areola v. Violation of a Right PNOC v. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff. otherwise the accrued interest and suspension of nominal only. Petroparcel with damage suffered. dishonoured and accounts frozen of check was acts contra bonus mores. Nominal damages Weddings only happen after kidnapping. some injury has been • Not as an equivalent of wrong inflicted but simply in recognition of the branch manager. Almeda v. inattention. No actual loss caused or proven For the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded Nominal damages recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind. so is fairly substantial. for their patis. Ferrer (2001) Held Casis Critiques returned almost a year recognized thus she is recognized thus she is Late cake. or breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have Art. loan agreement. it • Not intended for indemnification of loss but vindication of right violated. and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Such acts warranted indemnity thru and sheriff seized bottles. moral or done. Gonzales’ check PCIB without prior notice and dishonour manufacturers) filed for some species of injury not caused but not proven. bec 1) injury was value of the lost ship not sustained 2) case the valuation of the right People v. nominal damages may be Gonzales as accommodation party only Termination of the loan agreement by Twin Ace (Tanduay When the plaintiff suffers awarded if injury is of Sps.   55 . recovery of possession enough to warrant actual Language of Court implies because of Panlilio’s default. Cariño (2003) Held excuse of traffic. not remitted. filed complaint for breach exemplary because fails to show” makes it of contract. CA (1994) Held Casis Critiques Personal accident policy Areola won and was The rule that the court Art. lots sold. 2221. Most • Punitive in nature Petroparcel at fault. Maybe damages damages layered delivered lied about the lost order they deserve more than slip and gave the lame just nominal. 1. Liable Cariño sold lots to Almeda and despite Cariño entitled to nominal damages due to their insensitivity. 2222. pay even though they already sold vendor to receive unpaid balance to the Twin Ace v. “nominal damages enumerated in Article 1157. or in every case where any property right has been invaded. which they awarded to Rufina (since from previous rule that Gonzales v. P2M awarded approximation of the damages. awarded because they once in a lifetime. is sufficient to award nominal awarded. CA (1998) Held Casis Critiques Vessel collided with No proof of actual P2M is hardly nominal. ordered 3. Marquez (2011) Held Casis Critiques dragged on for 2 decades to be vindicated. Panlilio. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source was unilaterally cancelled awarded nominal even stated. damages. Rufina (2006) Held Casis Critiques property to third parties. not in fact. Fault of actual present loss. which has been or can be shown. NOMINAL DAMAGES . the amount of which existence of a technical injury. because premiums were though there was no are recoverable where • Damages in name only. insurance company took similar to temperate. PCIB (2011) Held bought. even if only technical. PURPOSE AND WHEN RECOVERABLE steps to rectify the wrong within reasonable time. 2. Baby was was violated and was violated and Francisco v. been violated or invaded by the defendant. certain threshold so was no actual present loss of any kind. IV. actual damages may be Gonzales had the right to be informed of awarded. nominal damages likely it was an • Violation of right. Insured But no actual. may be vindicated or recognized. Rufina used Tanduay Nominal damages This statement is different bottles.

damages suffered. v. However prudence was an affront nature of injury may be to this right. injury sustained. violation.” It is Sps. commensurate to injury suffered. law presumes a damage. At best. guests forced to Shangri-la exercised techinically. and sustained (violation of nominal damages should peace of mind (Art 26) legal participation) not be based on amount and Shang’s lack of of damage. later Twin Ace. China pay for own drinks prescience in scheduling. People) because of confusion with because passengers were not reach certain travel agencies. • Makes nominal damages similar to temperate. and Pedrosa all Nominal damages damages. was excluded. rude have been avoided if which implies that. Under Considerations of Equity fixed by the court w/o Equity – ruling not based on law regard to extent of harm done to injured party. private resp is entitled to nominal” If at all. Should not be based on extent of harm to injured party warrant actual damages. PNOC. People (2007) Held Casis Critiques Considering that temperate damages performs similar function – awarding damages Gonzales convicted of Temperate and exemplary Court did not mention an in lieu of unproven actual damages. Amount should not be equivalent of a wrong inflicted but merely recognition of the existence of a technical injury. damages to “small sums” and temperate for more substantial amounts. Rule: Nominal damages may take the place of actual damages which is not proven BUT there is body of jurisprudence that provides award must be commensurate to • Consistent with: nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory. Adopted child ruled that nominal awarded because ever negligence was an affront. injured due to reckless threshold but bec there In determining amount. Pedrosa v. As to nominal: award for nominal though. still entitled to nominal damages should be person is entitled to not necessarily a damages which should be commensurate to injury respect of his dignity. it may be best to limit award of nominal arson awarded. they were not In the partition of Partition invalid but no Gonzales. reservation. the child of one of the heirs damages. Plaintiff The Court may consider 1. proven because replacement Temperate damages tickets cost less than would be more proper. Example: Casis comment: Curious how abovementioned rule transformed in China Airlines and damages for violation of right to life > violation of right to property. Guania v. NATURE AND DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT Held Casis Critiques (2003) Passengers were Nominal damages Court did not award “Assessment of amount is left to the discretion of the TC acc to circumstances of prevented from boarding awarded to passengers actual not bec injury did case” (Gonzales v. the adopted substantiated claims for Airlines. courts may be guided by jurisprudence. No actual at all. privacy. although actual or compensatory damages not because no BF. China Airlines Ltd. amount of nominal damages considering gravity of right violated. CA (2001) Held Casis Critiques waiters. Gonzales v. “nominal damages are by their nature small sums 3. entitled to nominal property. CA B. 2. wedding reception. Commensurate to injury suffered original tickets. CA (1995) • Court denied actual damages for lack of evidence Magnitude of wrong or damage inflicted should not affect amount awarded because • Nominal awarded because “in the absence of competent proof of actual the right remains the same regardless of amount of damage caused. confirmation of was no pecuniary loss. should not be basis of Substantial claim But no moral or exemplary w/n it should be awarded . considered. The amount of personality. Makati also a substantial claim if Held Casis Critiques based upon violation of Shangri-la (2011) Delay in service during Delay in service might Basis of award was equity legal right. Small but Substantial suffered some specie of the degree of injury in Nominal damages are by their nature “small sums” injury not enough to awarding nom dam but it .   56 . *cited Lufthansa German Airlines v.

determining amount because it does not alter Delivery truck sideswiped Temperate and moral This could be another the fact that a right was van causing van to hit damages awarded. has been suffered but its amount can not.3. Lower exception to the rule violated. (evidenced by photos. Robes-Francisco v. Republic v. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the sufficiently established. Van driver court’s reduction of requiring documentary time goes in the amount suffered injuries affecting termperate unjustified evidence for the award of of moral suffering which brain.” Kidnapped minor for short ND awarded but reduced Period of time should not . which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages. TEMPERATE DAMAGES . besmirched reputation evidence fails to show. be provided with recoverable where some Cuenca. Although amount cannot be proven) TD have been awarded for and P300k for LEC actual damages not because earning capacity provem. WHEN AWARDED with GSIS by virtue of a obligation. even if nature of case allows for possibility of pecuniary loss Absence of BF means a being proven with certainty. OMC Carriers Held Casis Critiques (2011) *similar to res judicata – bar to question issue ever again. was awarded. reduction of ND. from the nature of the case. “In criminal cases. 2224. 2. doing so. Truck lost brakes. killed owner. injury has been done the The special reason extant amount of which the in Robes-Francisco is the Examples in class: damage to environment. driver Temperate damages Because the income- jumped out. may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss title was violated. duration of kidnapping. Temperate damages for medical damages were awarded expenses. Nature of case prevents determination of actual loss forecolsed mortgage. Tan v. was given the relatively short be considered in Pleno v. Truck awarded: P200k for earning capacity loss was rammed into tailoring destroyed property clearly established. TD shop. certainty. damages awarded damages is within the because right to acquire scope or intent of law” – Art. it may no longer is plainly established but be awarded if nominal no evidence to support damages have been allegation of actual awarded for same income purpose. because it did not show LEC. Cases where amount of loss not proved assessment of damages Jurisprudence allows temperate damages where the actual amount of loss was not will be left to the court. Tuvera duration of time. if ever. Bernardo (2002) Held Casis Critiques amount of actual damages was not proven due to inadequacy of evidence. CA ( 1988) Held Casis Critiques returned right away. for loss of earning C. but less than Compensatory. ND are Northwest Airlines Inc. Court has awarded temperate damages to heirs of victim where People v. Nominal assessed as nominal 1. Special reasons extant in the case IV. CFI pecuniary loss cannot be proved with certainty Held Casis Critiques (1978) Developer failed to issue Developer guilty of delay “Circumstances of a Within the context of compensatory damages TCT despite full payment amounting to particular case will because title was still nonperformance of determine w/n the amount A. v. Temperate or moderate damages.   57 . The length of parked truck. right involved and all accessory questions. or their respective heirs and assigns. EFFECT OF AWARD capacity because his actual income was not Art. proven with certainty. the absence of BF. More than Nominal. should be considered in sufficient reasons for Court also granted actual moral damages. as between the parties to the suit. 2223.

Lucero (2010) Held Casis Critiques Murder. damaged fence. It was into account the cost of rebuilding the destroyed during typhoon. Chronic and continuing injury estimating cost of rebuilding. Court arrived amount by a. P4k LEC) was fought. In addition to actual damages B. Gidoc which presented c. FACTORS IN DETERMINING AMOUNT Ventanilla v. Centeno 1. anything BUT if actual damages are proven to be more than P25k. damages cover two optimal care. Yrat) damages was deleted. expenses like coffin were when no evidence of expense not covered by a However.000 due to appendectomy awarded in addition to damages should allow Some cases provide that if amount of actual damages proven by receipts is less actual damages because petitioners to provide for than P25k. though to a certain extent Aggrieved party awarded P600k as actual damages and P1M for LEC by TC but SC speculative. People (2010) Held Casis Critiques because it was shown that family suffered pecuniary loss but amount cannot be Attempted homicide Actual damages was only The amount covered by certain. should take only awarded P25k in lieu of actual damages LEC which was not proven. No one died hence to funeral or burial. In addition to other actual damages proven embalming expenses.   58 . In general Held Casis Critiques (1961) • More than nominal but less than compensatory Attorney neglected to Nominal damages A claim for actual and • Reasonable under the circumstances perfect appeal of his lient awarded so it precludes temperate damages is within reglementary temperate damages inconsistent BUT possible De Guzman v. People v. because both are if TD has a basis separate Constructor made deviations from the Temperate damages increased taking substitutes for actual.” (People v. Cited case of expenses is presented in Gidoc had no evidence “In lieu of actual damages because funeral expenses lacked evidentiary basis. not evidenced by receipt burial and funeral receipt. No indication that the total amount would have exceeded P25k in any case. Tumolva (2011) Held period. from actual damages. then TD will no longer be distinct phases.3. the award of temperate damages for P25k is justified. In addition to civil indemnity embalming was P3k. into account the cost of proper care. Receipts amounting to less than P25. temperate damages may be awarded in addition. Funeral. (People v. TC. burial and other expenses lacked evidentiary basis so Court awarded TD Serrano v. inadequate. other murder cases is proper for embalming like an Civil indemnity for death is a type of actual damages provided for in Art 2206. Magalona) (stabbed victim) because P3858 which is less than receipts (P15k medical two UP-D rival groups P25k so Court awarded expenses. Prayed for P19k P25k as TD the amount prayed for as actual damages and did not exceed P25k. different from this case Cited People v. P3k as actual presented which is temperate damages were awarded. Ramos v. receipt for Award of P25k as TD in The Court treated amount b. CA (1999) Held Casis Critiques Patient became comatose Temperate damages Award of temperate 2. plan regarding the fence. The less would be grossly awarded (Villanueva Rule) amount of temperate. Civil indemnity also awarded.

No receipts (P50k). When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the one Rule: Award of Actual Damages – never less than P25k. 2226. Liquidated damages. argue that the award undertaking to assume People v. 2228. TD equal to award might be inflation of for burial or funeral. is an accessory Sps. P13. Original rule: only funeral expenses (People v. actual damages P25k was awarded as TD. Abrazaldo) Evolved to cover also medical and loss of income. those contemplated by the exact amount can’t be a sum of money. proven. expressly recognized by parties. Murder. and not the stipulation. for exemplary. necessarily answer for all denied that heir suffered paid so the creditor filed types of breach but only pecuniary loss although an action for collection of A penalty clause. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES . prices. whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty. Reyes People v. Definition Art. law. 3. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract. 2. *Effect of P25k award in lieu of actual damages not proven/ actual damages of lesser amount: Amount of actual damages always > P25k. DEFINITION AND PURPOSE documents was P24. Andres (2003) Held Casis Critiques VI. 2227. prove claim of expenses P25k for TD. damages exceeded P25. Receipts to expenses so awarded the amount to P25k as because the promissory obligation. recoverable as between damages do not presented. shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. Why P25k? half of P50k does not look note provided for an from heirs of victim = bec ½ of death indemnity into the future when there unqualified rate of 5%. borrowed money to The Court ruled that A provision on liquidated murder as TD since it is pay an obligation and attorney’s fees were in damages will not proper in homicide or executed a promissory the nature of liquidated necessarily apply in a case murder cases when no note binding them jointly damages and not the of breach of contract evidence of burial and and severally to pay in attorney’s fees because liquidated funeral expenses is monthly installments. Abrazaldo of attorney’s fees of 20% greater liability on the Held Casis Critiques (2003) by the lower courts was part of the obligor in case Murdered man who tried Heirs did incur funeral The problem with pegging illegal or erroneous of breach of an to help him. similar to Serrano 1.100 only.363 awarded. to be paid in case of breach thereof. People v. Purpose Art. It cannot be Only one installment was attorney and client. • Sum of money stipulated can either be intended to: • Compensate the non-breaching party for the injury caused by the other party’s breach (indemnity) • Punish the breaching party (penalty)   59 . No indication that the proven by competent actual damages no longer amount of actual A. the law shall determine the measure of damages. Gidoc (2009) Held Casis Critiques Held Casis Critiques (2008) Two counts of murder Awarded P25k/count of Sps. contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages. No Receipts Provided Some cases provide for an award of TD of P25k even where no receipts are • Can only exist if there is a contract or an agreement between the partners presented in evidence • Common for liquidated damages to be referred to as “attorney’s fees” Suatengco v. Art. • Liquidated damages do not necessarily answer for all types of breach but only those contemplated by the parties.

Amount agreed way of penalty” and plus 10% of the total subjective and partly upon in the contract that the party amount due by way of objective. It abandoned damages in this case a. each calendar day of the amount is “not by interest in case of default iniquitous can be partly delay. company and ordered The supplies company Stipulated penalty may be liquidated damages to be more than adequately deleted: paid plus attorney’s fees protected itself from a • when there has been equivalent to 25% of possible breach of substantial whatever amount is due contract because of the performance in good and payable. Marina B. and itself suffers from the attorney’s fees. H. extent. fatal infirmity. developer contracted out • Amount agreed upon themselves jointly and stipulated penalty from are a number of factors the work to another entity. The stipulated penalty supplies and materials. Possible Tests company to construct a damages as provided in incorrect. • mode of breach and its consequences Titan v. Liquidated condominium complex. REDUCING THE AMOUNT Held Casis Critiques (2004) Real estate developer The Court ruled that the Characterization of the 1. • when the penalty clause liquidated damages. its contract. Uni-Field (2007) Held Casis Critiques • supervening realities Construction supplies The award of attorney’s It is possible to receive company filed complaint fees of “25% of whatever liquidated damages and • standing and against construction amount due and payable” attorney’s fees even if relationship of the company for failing to pay was too much because it both are in the nature of parties balance of construction included the principal. and liquidated might likewise be reduced damages.L. damages. the Court to determine if stipulated payment of • Provision of the every month on the Question of whether a the stipulated penalty is liquidated damages for contract states that outstanding principal and penalty is reasonable or iniquitous. CA (2002) Held Casis Critiques for sum of money seeking result the real estate penalty. answers for damages claiming liquidated attorney’s fees if the Resolution would depend suffered by the owner due damages was not matter was indorsed to a of such factors. intention is that it is a penal clause. Court reduced when a partial or irregular The lower courts ruled in the attorney’s fees to 25% performance is made by favor of the supplies of the principal only.   60 . and Under Philippine laws. When Iniquitous or Unconscionable entered into a contract construction company liquidated damages in this with a construction was liable for liquidated case as a penalty was 2. interest. recovery of the amount. actual damages to be enforce payment. Bank purpose of penalty these damages “take the entitled to liquidated filed complaint for • nature of the obligation nature of penalties”. or when Attorney’s fees are in the exceptional nature of liquidated circumstances so exist damages because the as to warrant it. Carlos v. penal clauses. answers for damages severally to pay a bank 5% to 3% for being that may be considered by The contract had suffered loan with a penalty of 5% unconscionable. he has incurred suit was instituted to • type. but not to delays in the required to prove that lawyer for collection or if a necessarily confined to: completion of the project. Promissory note binding The Court reduced the It would seem that there payment of various sums. Apply rules on penalty clauses The construction the project prior to its were in the concept of company instituted a case completion and as a indemnity rather that Ligutan v. stipulations on the faith by the obligor payment of interest. the debtor.

Since they also violated amount not unless the the contract. Admiral United Held Savings Bank (2008) Loan from bank was evidenced by The Court sustained the interest rate of promissory note with interest at the rate 18% per annum but reduced the awarded of 18% per annum. It also stipulated revolving capital. which actual damages would include the interest and penalties the e. “Proportionality to Purpose” Test reduced by half. the nature extend a revolving capital However the producer damages. and attorney’s fees. Consider Actual Damages • If the purpose is punitive: becomes a policy decision and injury suffered by the innocent part need not be taken into consideration • Domel Trading v. Test: Given the other stipulations in the contract. The agreement liquidated damages were because the other party provided that the agreed upon by the was also guilty of a aggrieved party had the parties in case of breach breach. also failed to deliver the mean that neither should standing of the attorney may be an aid in the determination of the iniquity or leaves as agreed upon. payment of interest. Blanco: Amount and character of the services rendered.b. Applying Precedent violation was not reduced in proportion to actionable. payment. which would and importance of the litigation. is the amount stipulated as liquidated damages necessary as indemnity or penalty? f. awarded to one party was d. CA: A court may very well take into account the actual • Test: What is the proper penalty for this kind of breach? damages sustained by a creditor who was compelled to sue the defaulting debtor. damages. Henry Dela Rama Co. Necessity Test creditor may have had to pay on its own from its funding source. Blanco the Court reviewed recent jurisprudence to determine reduced the liquidated In this case. although the amount stipulated may be c. receive the stipulated unconscionableness of attorney’s fees. bank filed a collection case. The loan was not paid so the liquidated. the Court the nature of the breach. and liquidated damages at being “adequately protected” by the 3% per annum in the event of non. because the whether the award of liquidated damages was iniquitous or unconscionable. service fee. damages in the exercise stipulated damages of its discretion. and the professional character and the social to the distributor. CA (1983) Held Casis Critiques Producer agreed to supply The Court ruled that there The Court reduced the distributor with ipil-ipil was no question that liquidated damages in half leaves. it means that his breach was not as • If the purpose is to compensate: amount must correspond to the actual injury grave as the breach of the suffered other party. service charge at 10% liquidated damages due to the claimant per annum. argued that both are that the distributor would entitled to liquidated • Polytrade v. right to collect liquidated and that the distributor damages for violation of breached the contract by If both parties were guilty any provision in the failing to provide the of breach then it may be   61 . When in pari delicto Sy v. v. “Attorney’s Fees” Test contract. • In Polytrade v. • Test: Is the stipulated amount justified by the injury suffered by the innocent party? g.

1.480 as exemplary damages were that states that the Art. or malevolent Application of the rule is as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an person because they manner. oppressive. Imposed by way of The enumeration of the public good. • Exemplary damages cannot be awarded if moral. PNB v. which therefore cannot be stipulated away their drivers. they of doubtful validity injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct already released it. in addition to the moral. in addition to the moral. CA (1996) Held Casis Critiques Court ordered PNB to PNB was held liable but The Court left out the part release Php32. The rule cited • Imposed by way of example or correction for the public good who allegedly had a damages may be awarded does not apply to all • Rationale: Identification of obnoxious behavior and the expression that such special power of attorney. 2229. temperate. expropriation actions based on proceedings. Cannot be recovered be awarded. All Commodities Held Casis Critiques (2008) 3. if a party acted in wanton. PURPOSE delivered it to someone Civil Code. fraudulent. of temperate damages to • Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the justify the award of offended party. 2229. temperate. It company to recover the simply relied on the award 4. PNB was not based on a Complaint against PNB to contract or quasi- B. 2232 of the contracts and quasi- A. In General their determination Art. Exemplary contract however the • Because the award is meant to serve as a deterrent to similar acts. or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for oppressive. behavior must not be tolerated PNB refused to deliver the fraudulent. or compensatory accompanied by bad damages are not awarded faith or done in a • In liquidated damages. Exemplary Damages: Art. exemplary contracts. as a matter of right. by way of example or correction for payment for government not awarded. or Complaint against trucking malevolent act required. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed. In Crimes value of the lost sugar. cases. by parties to a contract. established exemplary damages are to 2. 2230 should be interpreted in its broad or generic sense   62 . PNB Under Art. there is a disappeared along with damages were awarded ponencia was silent on public interest element to the award. • People v. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed. reckless. temperate. 2234 cannot be depending on the interpreted to mean that • Cannot be recovered as a matter of right amount of compensatory damages compensatory must be awarded before 2. cannot be recovered as a because the obligation of matter of right. in addition to the moral. or liquidated damages malevolent manner Canada v. WHEN IMPOSED recover the amount for Requirements for contract. liquidated or compensatory damages. liquidated or compensatory damages. provision pertains to the public good. temperate. because temperate the wanton. Renunciation in Advance Agreement to deliver sacks Trucking company was Action was based on a of sugar but the trucks liable. the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to wanton. exemplary damages. moral. damages were awarded. 2229. Catubig: “aggravating circumstances” in Art. liquidated or compensatory damages. • People v. reckless. VII. by way of example or correction for 1. EXEMPLARY/ CORRECTIVE DAMAGES . temperate. In Addition to Other Types damages exemplary damages are 3. Catubig: Intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings and amount to the right oppressive. by way of example or correction for them has been to refer to all cases where the public good. Act must be awarded. example only after requirements mentioned claimant’s right to should not be interpreted Art. However. fraudulent. expropriation.

either engine. complaint for damages. CA Held Casis Critiques 2230. 2000). Coronado (1989) Aggravating circumstances which were Collision between a bus The Court found the bus The Court did not fully not alleged in the information but proved and jeep. Dadulla (2011) Held ruled that the information failed to state The rule in the Revised Rules on Criminal Accused was convicted of rape and acts The Court awarded exemplary damages the minority of the victim and her Procedure requiring qualifying or of lasciviousness. party complaint was filed the jeepney passenger. damages on Art. Court used Art. CA (1997) Held when the criminal case Bus was being pushed to jumpstart the The Court held the bus company liable was instituted. by one of the jeepney’s It is the duty of the People v. exemplary only the criminal liability and not the civil rape proving during the trial that he damages were awarded. The crime was liability of the accused. knew of the victim’s mental disability. committed prior to the enactment of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure thus 5. As the engine started. Diunsay-Jalandoni (2007) Held of specificity in the information affects Court convicted accused of qualified Pursuant to People v. it hit and finding that the driver was grossly before or after the ran over a biker. Dalisay (2009) Held Casis Critiques passengers. aggravating circumstances to be alleged circumstances of relationship and circumstances. the Court there was gross simple rape because the damages sustained to ruled that the Revised negligence on the part of special qualifying discourage and deter such Rule did not apply to the defendant in order to circumstances of minority aberrant behavior and crimes committed before be entitled to exemplary and relationship were not reprehensible conduct but and not instituted before damages. People v. People v. A 3 exemplary damages to negligence. were awarded. information. 2230 of the Civil Code because the requirements People v. exemplary damages under Art. In Quasi-Delicts the retroactive application of the rules could not adversely affect the right of a Kapalaran Bus Line v. Catubig (2001) Held Court convicted accused of rape but The court awarded exemplary damages. Exemplary damages was reduced. 2229 not Baliwag Transit v. The heirs of brakes were already award for exemplary awarding such damages requirements of the Civil the victim filed a repaired. Owner of the bus driver grossly and very explain why the driver’s during the trial may be appreciated for the filed a complaint for probably criminally negligence in this case limited purpose of determining damage to property and negligent and awarded amounted to gross rd appellant’s liability for exemplary injuries sustained. damages were awarded to circumstances have both the heirs. moved the bus without gross negligence. 2229 as (1996) Two sets of jurisprudence basis rather then Art. It ran over negligence when he negligence amounted to if aggravating exemplary damages the mechanic. Catubig. been alleged and proven. claimant to prove that Accused was convicted of Award of exemplary In Catubig. Exemplary damages Rules. damages. sufficiently alleged in the based the award of the Revised Rules. But this opens the the terminal to repair its driver acted with gross explain fully why the exemplary damages even door to the award of faulty brakes. negligent in attempting to jumpstart the effectivity of the Revised The heirs of the victim filed a complaint bus at such a place. against the bus company and driver. The qualifying despite failure to allege the aggravating relationship with the offender.   63 . Neither circumstances have not despite non-compliance sandwiching him with first ascertaining if the did it explain why the been alleged and another with specific another bus. in the complaint or information is minority were not alleged in the The established presence of one or two inapplicable to offenses committed prior information. aggravating circumstances of any kind to the effectivity of the new rules or nature entitles the offended party to (December 1. The difference rests on Philtranco v. Driver brought the bus to The Court held that the The Court also did not exist: one awarding 2230. Held Casis Critiques private offended party. only if aggravating Code. promptly killing him.

Singapore Airlines v. Munsayac v. The jeepney do after the breach.   64 . etc. For the jeepney operator to be fraudulent. characterizes the breach of the contract on which the suit is based and not one The jeepney operator was held liable which is subsequent to such breach and due to the driver’s negligence but therefore has no causal relation. reckless. fraudulent. CA: The Court applied the rule applicable to quasi-delicts to an action based on Articles 19. which had no causal operator argues that the wanton. De Lara (1968) Held A jeepney passenger filed a complaint The Court agreed with the jeepney against the operator of the jeepney due to operator holding that it could not be the injuries suffered from an accident held liable for something it did or did not while she was on board. 36. fraudulent.• Globe Mackay v. 33. and 21 even though these provisions do not refer to quasi-delicts. oppressive. oppressive. Fernandez (2003) Held Acclaimed soprano missed her flight The Court found that there was a clear and was treated very badly by the airline breach of contract and bad faith on the causing her to performance in front of part of the airline. She filed an action for amounting to bad faith. o Casis Critiques: What about the other provisions (a. Exemplary damages were not awarded in finding that there was no wanton. exemplary damages were not awarded. or malevolent manner although it is often associated with bad faith. damages were awarded. or liable.k. Exemplary damages against the airline.a. relation. 20. In Contracts and Quasi-Contracts • F R O W M (according to Aves) o Fraudulent o Reckless o Oppressive o Wanton o Malevolent • No explicit rule on what constitutes wanton. or malevolent act.)? 6. it must be shown that it had malevolent act referred to in Art. Francisco v. reckless. Ferrer (2001) Held Three-layered wedding cake. 2232 previously authorized or knowingly must be coetaneous with and ratified the act. oppressive. The inattentiveness the Malaysian Royal Family to be and rudeness of the airline personnel to subpar and bringing medical problems the soprano’s plight was gross enough into her life.